4 • <*r^ c"^ •J 





<* <^ *^n^' ^ <& *^ 













rAQi 



'bV" 







^^«=.' 



l^J- 6 " • 



.° _^°-nK V 



<> ^'TV 



«-vq 








^^-^^^ V 



*^ 






.^ ... 











• ** 





♦ «? «#*•> oT< 










•^v.-;^^ 



. /.;»:%, ,co^.i^^,%... ./..^;:.\ 




^^^9^' 




-n^^O^ 



>^ '^^ 














"^^.-^ 






4^ 






^^-n^ 











.0' %.*^fr^'\/ 



%.«* 







jp-v V 



















IPOPULAR SOVEREIGNTY 

IN THE TERRITOEIES. 




The purpose of this publication is simply to exhibit the Democratic Record, as it 
•was made by the Eepresentative Men of the Party, on the doctrine of Popular 
Sovereignty in the Territories. 



lion. Daniel S. Dickinson, of New York, 
introduced into the Senate, on the 14th day 
of December, 18-i7, the following resolutions : 

' BesolvrJ, That true policy requires the go- 
vernment of tlie United Stntes to strengtlien its 
political relations upon this continent by the 
annexsition of such contiguous territory .ns may 
conduce to that end and can he justly obtained, 
and that neither in such acquisition, nor in the 
territorial organization thereof, can any con- 
ditions be consiitutionally imposed, or institu- 
tions be provided for or estabijshed, inconsistent 
■with the r'.ghts of the people thereof to fcrm a 
free sovereign .State, with the powers and privi- 
leges of the original nieuibrrs of the confederacy." 

•'•Resolved, Tliat in organizing a territorial go- 
Ternment for teriitor}' belonging to the United 
States, the principles of self-government, upon 
■whicli our federative system rests, will be best 
promo. ed, the true spirit ai^d meaning of the 
constitution be observed, and the confederacy 
strengthened, by leaving all questions concern- 
ing the domestic policy therein to tlie legislature 
chosen by tlie people thereof." — Con/j. Globe, 
vol. 18, p. 21. 

Mr. Dickinson spoke at large on his reso- 
lutions on tlie 12th day of January, 18-18. 
The following is an extract of his speech : — 

"The republican theory teaches that sove- 
reigntj' reside? with the people of a State, and 
not with its political organization; and the De- 
claration of Independence recognizes the right 
of the people to alter and abolish or reconstruct 
their government. If sovereignty resides in the 
people, and not in the organization, it rests as 
well with the people of a Territory, in all that 
concerns their internal condition, as with the 
people of an organized State. And if it is the 
light of the people, by virtue of their innate sove- 
reignty, to alter or establish and reconstruct 
their government, it is the right of the inhabit- 
'ants of a Territory, by virtue of the same inborn 
attribute, in all that appertains to their domestic 
concern-;, to fashion one suited to their con- 
dition." * * * * 

"Although the government of a Territory has 
not the same sovereign power as the government 



of a State, in its political relations the people of a 
Territori/ have, in all that appertains to their inter- 
nurcondition, the same sovereign bights as thb 
PEOPLE OF A State." — Appendix Cong. Globe, 
vol. 19, p. 88. 

The Georgia Democratic State Conven- 
tion which was held at Milledgeville in 1847 
unanimously adopted the following : — 

" Eesolved, That Congress possesses no power 
under the constitution to legislate iu anj' way or 
manner in relation to the institution of slavery. 
It is the constitutional right of every citizen to 
remove and settle with his property iu any of 
the Territories of the United States." 

" Resolved, That the people of the South do 
not ask of Congress to establish the institution 
of slavery in any of the Territories that may be 
acquired by the United States ; they simphj require 
that the inhabitants of each Territory shall be left 
free to delermi7ie for themsdves ichethcr the imti- 
tiition of slavery shall or shall not form a part of 
their social system." 

The foregoing resolutions were reported 
to the Convention by a committee consist- 
ing of F. H. Cone, R. A. L. Atkinson, Jesse 
Carter, W. S. Johnson, Eobert Griffin, Thos. 
HilUard, W. W, Wisdns, E. W. Chastain, 
AV. J. Lawton, S. WrColbert, and D. PhU- 
lips. They were voted for, among others, 
by Hon. James Jackson, now a Eepresenta- 
tive in Congress from Georgia, and Lucius 
Q. C. Lamar, now a Representative in Con- 
gress from Mississippi, but then a citizen of 
Xewton county, Ga. 

Extract of the speech of Hon. Alfred 
IvERsoN, of Georgia, (now a Senator of the 
United States,) in the House of Representa- 
tives, July £6, 1848 :— 

" It has been objected that the position as- 
.sumcd by General Cass, and approved by the great 
body of the Democratic party, in every section of the 
Union, that Congress has no power over the 
question of slavery, and that it belongs exclu- 
sively to the people of the Territories themselves, 
is worse for the South than the doctrine of the 



Printed and Sold at $1.50 per 100, hy MuRPnr &, Co., 1S2 Baltimore Street, BuUimcre. 



CO|.^ 



Wilmot proviso. We are told that slavery is | 
now excluikil fioni Niw Mexico and C^lil'oiuia, | 
and 111 U the quistion must be decided agiiinst 
the tsoutli, illelt to their inhabitants. Sir, sup- 
pose this to be true, how luucU worse oft" are we 
than if tiie jutisdiclioii be left to Congre-s? If 
the ptiwei- be adiuitted to the federal govern- 
ment, wlio dots not see and know that the adop- 
tion of the Wilmot provi^r^o is inevitable? The 
only guarantee agaiu.-t its adoption at the pre- 
sent moment is the constitutional scruples of 
the Northern democrats, and the exercise of the 
veto power. Remove these, by admitting the 
cuustitutional power, and the ^Vilmot proviso is 
fastened upon us for all time to come. What, 
then, can the South lose by leaving the question 
to the people of the Territories, rather than to ti;e 
Congress of the United States? Sir, I do not 
propose to argue the constitutional power, either 
in Congress or the Territories, over this subject. 
Much diil'crence of opinion exists as to whether 
the power is in the federal government, or in the 
hands of the people of the Territories. These 
questions have been ably argued by those who 
have gone before me in this debate, and I do not 
intend to occupy the time of the committee in 
their renewed discussion. It is admitted, how- 
ever, by all parties, that there is a point of time 
at which this question of slavery or no slavery 
may be, and must be, decided by tlie people of 
the Territories; when they meet in convention, 
in tlie exercise of sovereign authority, to form a 
constitution preparatory to admission into this 
Union as a State. The only diiference of opinion 
upon the point is, whether the people may or 
may not, under the constitution, exercise this 
power by territorial legisbition prior to the 
formation of a State constitution. Sir, without 
discussing or deciding the question, I do not con- 
sider it a matter of essential importance at wu.\t 
TIME this power may be exercised ly the people of 
the Territories. It is, in my opinion, of infinitely 
more importance, both to the South . and to the 
Union, THAT the rowEU be left to the Terri- 
TOiUES, in-tead of the federal government." — 
Appendix Cony. Globe, vol. 19, p. 9(35. 

Extract of the speech of lion. Thomas G. 
Pratt, of Maryland, in tlie Senate, July 30, 
1850, when the Compromise measures were 
under discussion, on the motion of Mr. 
Norris, of New Hampshire, to strike out 
from the tenth section of the Territorial 
Bills the words, "establishing or prohibiting 
African slavery," the purpose of whicli in 
the Bills was to inhibit the people of the 
Territories from legislating on the subject: — 

"The great doctrine of tlie South, as I undcr- 
Btand it, ami the only true grouml on which the 
Bouth c.-.n stand, is the dxctriue of non-interven- 
tion. Now, wliat 1 understaiid by non-interven- 
tion, is the d'.nial of the executive and legislative 
authority of the federal government of all power 
over the snbject of slavery, anywhere and every- 
where. That is the non-intervention upon which 
I have been taught to rest the rights of the 
Bouth. That is the non-intervention upon which 
I am now willing to rest them, — that neither the 



executive nor legislative branches of the federal 
government have the power, in any way what- 
ever, to interfere with the subject of domestiij 
sl.-ivery !iny where. And I am therefore peifocily 
willing that the amendment which was originally 
adopted should be stiicken out, as proposed by 
my friend from New llamjishire, [Mr. Norris.J 

"But there is another reason which it seems 
to me must render this provision, in the eyes of 
every one, inoperative, if it continue in the bill. 
You have this morning adopted an amendment 
by whitdi the Territorial government establi.-^hed 
by the bill is not to o[ierate, in pnesc/iti, within 
the larger portion of the territory cL.imed as 
New Jlexico. Therefore, in consequence of 
that restriction, there could be no lej;! lation in 
reference to the subject of slavery within that 
Territory at (he present time. 

"With regard to the other Territory, Utah, 
slaves arc already held there ; and if you give the 
people of that Territory poicer to regulate it, — 

WHiCH THEY WOULD HAVE IF THIS CLAUSE 13 

STRICKEN OUT, — they would legislate in favor of 
that Southern institution in which we are inte- 
rested. I, therefore, for one, as a Southern 
man, standing up for the rights of the South as 
much as any man here, am willing that this 
clause should be stricken out, more i):!rticularly 
when it will gain some votes for the bill." — App. 
Cony. Globe, vol. 22, part 2, p. liOi. 

Extract of the speech of lion. STErnEX A. 
Douglas, of Illinois, in the Senate, June 3, 
18a0:— 

" The Senator from Mississippi puts a question 
to me as to what number of people there must 
be in a Territory before this right to govern 
themselves accrues. Without determiiung the 
precise number, I will assume that the right 
ought to accrue to the people at the moment 
they have enough to constitute a government; 
and, sir, the bill assumes that there .are people 
enough there to require a government, and 
enough to authorize the people to govern them- 
selves. If, sir, there are enough to require a 
government, and to authorize you to allow them 
to govern themselves, there are enough to govern 
themselves upon the subject of negroes as well 
as concerning other species of property and 
other descriptions of institutions. Your bill 
concedes that government necessaij'. Y'our bill 
concedes that a representative government is 
necessary, — a government founds d upon prin- 
ciples of popular sovereignty and the right of 
the people to enact their own laws; and lor this 
reason you give them a legislature constituted 
of two branches, like the legislatures of the dif- 
ferent States and Territories of the Union; you 
coidVr upon them the right to leg'slate upon all 
rightlul subjects of legislation, except negroes. 
117,^ except negroes? Why except African slavery ? 
If the inhabitants are competent to govern them- 
selves upon all other subjects, and in reference 
to ail other descriptions of property, — if they 
are competent to regulate the laws in reference 
to master and servant, and parent and cliild, and 
commercial laws ati'ecting the rights and pro- 
peity of citizens, — they are competent also to enact 
laws to govern themselves in regard to slavery and 



Weet. JQee. Siat. Soc. 



23 



subject."— Co>ij. Globe, 2a session, SGth Con- 
gress, p. 12tJi. 

Remarks of Hon. James S. Green-, of Missouri, 
(now a Senator of the United States.) in the House 
ot Representatives, on his aniemlment to the bill 
to '-establish a Territorial Government fur Upper 
California." February 27, 1S49 : 



"Mr. Green moved to ain^nd the 12th seetion hy strikin? out 
^the see:jii.i Ime the words '»A <«/<«■ .ind ius^n-tm:? '.xrk • 




the rig ■U ,.r,oi!.g,s, and imniunilf.i nf Aiii'.riam c.iUv.na. He 
proposed, tiereforo, to strike out the words '.v7(„« U: because 
tiiey iiupaed tlie po«-er on the part of Congress to confer these 
rights; t.i It they emjuated from this bodv, and ioere^K'0 nnhts 
exisiinif y the /.c'-k/i.,,-. i.vhekent KfSHrs ../• Aiiierimncitiz>;i^. 
L,et tiiem legislate uodsrst.uidinKlv oa all these poiuts. Let 
thorn say to the pejpiu of tiis Territories, Y„n a-e true A.nericin 
eitiJKn-< ; //'J.J /i„cK III'! rights of A.neri.-un ciliz-a' ; tee prfi^ti'l 
not to ron/fr/ho-^e ri.jrit^ „r,on ijoii. It was asserted bv some that 
tne people .,f the lerncones could exeroi.^e no power, except it 
was couierreJ noon them. It was asserted, on the otner hand, 
; ! '^""y'li-d. certain inhereut ri-hts. If Con dress held that 
they hid the inherent rights of self-soverumeirt, the rights of 
American citijens, let them not PRErE.vo l; confer t/in-,e riqhli 
«/-»-i them ; let them so word this section, that after-sonerations 
could understiud their le^'islation. n,l uil *e« ihnt they rem,,- 
?I^ ,f ""^.*''«:'' '"'.7''/ »'' ""; p-'Hde l„ (/joern theinseloen acco,'d- 
l;l.7 to the pri.ir.'plK^ „/ itntrtrxfll tihert,,. 

r,.l'J^!T\'''^'^"'^'-l\'''^V ^^ KSTABL.SHEi); and whatever 
fnlf^, ?-^^° ■«'"""? this House to-day. whatever mi?ht be the 
action of Congress for years to como. the.e ,.rinci^le^ ic,:re takinn 
root. t\Ky w.,M,,,;.to umi xtrenfjfheu „„tU Ih-ir exUt^iin «l„nM 
~JJZ"'' "'"' '"'",'■'."'«/. -N'OT O.VLY I.V THE STATES, BUT IN 

THE ThURiTOIllES ; and in the furthest extremities ofthis Union 
Wherever an Anerican citizen was f uind. his kigiits of sfi f- 
GOVER.VMENT lo.itl.l be ar.U.noed,,.,l. He otr.red tiiis aniend- 
meat. noo f ,r the pnrpose of producing excitement, not to stir 
K^ Jri °'a, A ^"'';?" i' 'r''"""^ " •"■■' '■■' FEKFEcr co.vso- 
ecribe. —C^n;/. GMie mid Aii/i., vol. 20, p. 6'J7. 

Extract of the speech of Hon. Willi vjr T 
Hamilto.v, of Maryland, in the House of Reprc- 
Bentatives, on the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Mav 
19, 1354: •' 

" This part of the section jcith reaped to the. lenUlative rtmcer 
IS subject to two interpretations, or cmstructions, and oolv- two ■ 
ius'. either chat the people there liave the full ri»Ut and power 
to determine control, and re,'ulate all their domestic institu- 
tions whilst they are in a Territorial condition, orsecondlv, that 
this right only applies when they come to form themselves into 
States and not before. One or the other of these coustrucHons 
must be taken. I will take eitlier, n„d swslain 'he bit But if 

Ih.-irr^*" '^n^'"'- ^^'- V"' <=?«?"■"<=''■"'■ ^y «-hich the peonle. 
Whilst in a lerntonai condition, possess this power, be taken 
and denoaneed .as ■ squatter' sovereignty— a term, by-the-hv I 
do not CLearly understand or comprehend; but admit it-admit 
i,^»»t ': ''i*'V^jn? T""t"-.^ have the full and undonbted 
?h»Tri' »f " ''"^'»". V '^■'^■^5" f"- themselves at all times 
their local institutions; I put it to gentlemen from the South I 
put It to_^ Republicans everywhere »ll over tlie Union, whether 
tiiey pre.er the .Vlissjun hue. the .Missouri exclusion ' the Wil- 
mot proviso, Vo this power of tlie people t,> dexide for tliemieloes 

"Mr. Chairman, you now have thi Missouri line: vou have 
the .Missoiri pr/hibition; you have the modern ' Wil'mot pro- 
viso And you are, by your action on this bill, to support and 
cherish It, or you arc to repeal, annul, destroy it. Which will 
you do? i,r myse,|.I can speak. / pr.f.r 'he. rtqnt. ,v,d th. 




^i?.,ii L • •/'" "," ■' ','"'5'''l "0 continued; wh^ Congress 
BhouM leg.s.at.', or why ,ts legislation, if wrong and injndidons 
81 ouU be CMtwiuedaaJ eaforced.'-.^^;^.„rf« Con. Globe, vol. 

^Jf pp. O-l, OJJ. ' 

Extract of the ppeeeh of Hon. Judah P. Bkn- 
JAMIN-, of Lniisiana. in the Semite. Mav 25, 185 1, 
on the Kaii^ is-Xebrnska bill, in reply" to certain 
remarks of Senator Wade, of Ohio: 

"May I not siy th.at he [Mr. Wade | has looked at the bill 
with a jaundiced eye: Who can Hnd upon its face that an em- 
pire IS ..pen t.. the invasi.m of slavery ? Sir, it does not provide 
eiipressly lor tae admissioa of slavery. Ue cannul pretend that 



SI.A1ES ARE TO BE CARRIED THERE under the hrhe^U ofthu 
«,>.i«'m^,y 1 he bill meroiy declares that that Territory is to b» 
open and free, that every citizen may go there; and when h» 
goy here TUiT HIS VOICE MAIT BE UEARD ,,. e.lnhlt.hmg the in- 
t ,V n".. / '"■«'otJ->ve,a h„n. That, sir, is the whole scope of 
the bill. —Append. Cong. Globe, Kol. 2'J, pp. 707, 708. 

Extract of speech of Hon. JosErn Holt, of 
Kentucky, now Postmaster General of the Uni- 
ted States, at Frederick, Maryland, in 1S56 : 

"The right of the people to govern themselves is a principle 
which underlies all onr institutions, and has been recognized 
alike m their origin and in every mode of their action. 'Jhi.. w 
an origi.iul right inherent m them, awi i« in no sen.'^e a derivatioe 
one. In those countries where men are serfs, and are attached 
to and pass with the soil and its incidents, the proprietorship of 
that soil carries with it political power over its inhabitants. In 
our land, however, directly the opposite system prevails; men 
being the principle, and the soil the incident, in theui rcndta th» 
autn^Uy to regulate, by legtstatiun, i/ieir domentic aijairs. 

From analogy, then, the same necessity which is at once th« 
origin and the limit of its [the Federal G.ivernmentl powers iu 
r^tereuco to the States, .should he «o lil.cwise in regnr.l to the 

/erriiories: 1 his view is fortilied by the remarkable words of 
tlie Lonstitution: ' The powers not delegated to tlie United States 
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re- 
served _t.. the States respectively, or to the people.' The term 

people here empl.iyed has clearly reference to the inhubitautu 
''■! '% '-'■'".'''"■'*-■' =!"<* ia "'"s rejognizing their p.ditical capacity, 
tlie Con.stitution places them under the same broad shelter 
against iederal aggression which the States themselves enjov. 
/ e, lower then to reynlate their d'lnestic concerns i.i thif< reserved 
to the people of the Territories, bemn^e not prohibited by them 
i", ,'!,"' «-7''«-''.V d-legated to Congrej,!,. If Congress can regu- 
late the relation between master and servant, so it can between 
hushand and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and thus 
an the local legislation of the Territory ivould be absorbed and 
ingulfed by a body ignorant of its wants and wishes, and iu which 
the people of the Territory have no voice. This would be anti- 
republican, to the last degree impoliti.-. and a usele-s and wanton 
violatmn of all t.he analogies of our popular form of goverumeat. 

(i"'^"''^'" '"" "*''"" •'""y''' to give riml or criminrtl rod^-s to 
the Territories after their orgnniz .lioii ; it has not d-lined the 
rights at property, regulated matter!^ of police, estrMixhed or con- 
tra led the mutitn'um of nmrrioi/e, but has l<-jt nil thejie great in- 
terests to the ca-e and maii/i>;.-inent nf ih.e local Lrg'isl,,lure.i. 
Do'.s not the instihition of slneen, stand upon pr^ciset^ the name 
fooling } It SEEMS TO ME UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DI3TIHGCISH 
IT FROM THE OFUKR SUBJECTS OF LOCAL LEGISLATION 10 WHICH 
I HAVE REFERRED." 

Extract of the Address of the Democratic 
I^ATioyAL Executive Cohmittee, of which Hon. 
Chas. J. Faulkner, of Virginia, was Chairman, 
to the Democracy of the United States, in 1S56 : 

"Finally, in 1&50. .after a period of great agitation throughout 
the country, the leading patriots and wise men of both parties 
such aa Cliiy, Webster. Cass, and others, decided upon leaving 
this ij.iesti.jn where it always ought to have been left, and whero 
the true spirit of our institutions places it— I.V TllU IIAXUS 
AND UNDKa TIIK CO\TROLOFTHE PEOPLE OF THE • 
TERRITORIES THEMSELVES, restrained only by the Con- 
stitution. 

"The whole nation rejoiced in this wise adjustment, and all 
parties cl.aimed it as a finality as to this principle of Territorial 
organization. For once the question of slavery in the Territo- 
ries was settled upon the principles of our Revolutionary fathers, 
w.io demanded a voice and a vote in regulating their own insti- 
tutions ; thi' same great fundamental principles of human govern- 
ment which underlie and uphold our whole republican system- 
principles snited to all Territories and to all times, and as broad 
and en.lunog as eternal truth. Tiiis form of adjustment wasde- 
nominatel NON--iNTERVE.VTIO.V BY COXGRESS— SELF- 
GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITO- 
RIES." 



APPENDIX. 

HENRY CLAY for Popular Sovereignty 

AXD SELF-GOVERNMENT BY THE PeOPLE I.V THE 

Territories. 

Extract of Speech of Hon. Hrnry Clay, of 
Kentucky, in the Senate, .June, 1S50. on the Com- 
promise Measures, in reply to Mr. J^ffersox 
Davis, of Mississippi : 

"Mr. Clat." * » * * "The clause itself was introduced 
into the bill by the committee f.r the pnrp .ge of tying up tho 
hands of the Territorial Legislature in respect to legislating at 
all, one way or the other, upon the snbjjct of .African slavery. 
It Wi.s intended to leave the legislation an.l the law of tho 
respective Territories in the condition in which tho act will find 
them. I st.ated on a former occasion that I did no", in comniitteB 
vote for tho ameudmeut to insert the clause, though it was pr» 



24: 



posed to be introdaccd hy a majority of the committee. I at- 
tached very little consequence to i(i at the time, and I attach 
Tery little to it at present. It is perliapj of no particular im- 
portance whatever. Now, sir, if I understand the me.isnre pro- 
posed liy the Senator from Jlissi.isippi, it aims at the sauio tiling. 
I do not understand him .as proposini; that if any one sliall carry 
»lavcs into the Territory,— although by the laws of the Territory 
he cannot take tlicm there,— the legislative hand.i of the territo- 
rial giivernmont should be so tied as to prevent it saving he shall 
not enjoy the fruits of their labor. If the Senator from Missis- 
•ippi means to s.ny that — 

"Jlr. Davis. I do mean to s.ay it." 

"Mr. Clav. If the object of (he Senator is to provide that 
slaves may br inlrodiicetl into the. Trrriioni i-ontrary to th-. Irx luri, 
andbfiiiij iiUrmiiired, nothing Khali be done by the L-gUtntare to 
impair th'. )igM» of owners io hold the slaves thus brought con- 
trary to the heal tair^, I certainly cannot vo'e for it. in doing 
BO, I shall repeat again the expression of opinion which I an- 
nounced at an early period of the session."— Cong. Globe, vol.21, 
part 1, p. 1003. 

Extract of Speech of Hon. He\ut Clav, of 
Kentucky, in the Senate, July 22, 1850, on the 
Compromise bill : 

"The provisions of the bill are that the people are If ft tree to 
do as they chnoxe. There is, indeed, one provision which did not 
meet with my approbation, and with which I would have been 
better satisfied had it been left out; and that is the provision 
which does not permit the Gocernmeilt of the Territorie.t to e.Hta},- 
lish or PROHIBIT slavery."— Append. Cong. Globe, vol. 22, part 2, 
p. 1410, 

Again; on the SOth of July, 1850, speaking on 
the motion of Mr. l^onnis, of'jSTew Hampshire, to 
strike out that provision of the bill which "did 
not meet his apijrobatiou," Mr. Cl.vy said: 

"The clause is an interdiction imposed by Congress upon the 
local Legislature either to introduce or to exclude slavery. Now, 
sir, it seems to me that Congrt-ss has no such powek according 
to the Southern doctrine. That doctrine is oneof clear and clean 
NON-l.NTEBVE.vrio.v. The amendment in the bill, on the con- 
trary, .assumes the power to exi.st in Congress, which is denied. 
For if Congress possesses the power to impose this interdiction, 
Congress lias the power to impose the Wilmot Proviso. The 
only difference is, that the action of Congress in the one case is 
direct, and tliat the action of Congress in the other case is indi- 
rect. It appears to me, therefore, that upon the great princi- 
ple [Non-/ntercf.ntion] upon which Southern gentlemen have 
rested the support of their rights, the,/ ought to oppo.-^e the exer- 
cise of this power by Congre.sa to interdict the local Legislature." — 
Append. Cong. Globe, vol. 22, part 2, p. 1465. 

Mr. Clay subsequently voted for the motion of 
Mr. NoFinis, to strike out from the Compromise 
bill the provision by which the Legislature of the 
Territory of New Mexico was interdicted from 
passing any law "establishing or prohibiting Af- 
rican slavery," and thus left the Legislature free 
either to establish or prohibit it. — See App. Cong. 
Globe, vol. 22, part 2, p. 1473. 



No New Plank ix the Dejiocratic Platform. 

Extract of the speech of Hon. Robert Toombs, 
delivered in Georgia, in September, 1S59,— no 

NEW PLANK IN THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM : — 

"From the day of the adoption of the present Constitution to 
this hour, the Federal Government have claimed and exercised 
the right In govern the Territories according to their own will 
and pleasure, subject only to the ConsCtution of the United 
States. It has steadilyclaimed and ex'Tcised the powers to con- 
trol their legislation in all cases whaisocver, without question 
or protest; therefore, neither in principle nor authority lias this 
new position of Senator Douglas a single leg to stand upon. 
Yet I do not belong to those who denonnce him: the org.anizatiua^ 
of the Democratic party leaves this an open question; he is at 
full liberty to take either side he may choose, and if he uuiinlains 
his ancient ground of nei'her making nor nccrpling new tenia if 
political soundness, / shalt still consider hint a political friend , 
and tm'l accejH him as the reiitc-entatice of the party whenever it 
may tender him; and in the meantime, if he should even wander 
ufier strange gods, I do not hesiiate to tell you that, with his 
errors, I prefer him and would support him to-morrow against 
any Opposition man in America. 

"I have but a single point remaining to present to you on this 
occasion. We. are told, that we must put a new plank t« the Dem- 
ocratic platform, and dt^mand the affirmance of the duly of Con- 
gress to firotert slavery in the Territories, whenever such Territo- 
ries fall to discharge this unquestionable duly. Some of the 
Opposition lenders say if you will do that we will act with 
you. Now, I reply, I do not think it wise to do the thing pro- 
posed; and. in the second place, I do not think the induement 
proposed helps the i}rnposition. While I have already asserted 
full and complete power in Congress to do this thing. I think, 
with Mr. Madison, that such a power should be most prudettly 
and carefully exercised; that it ought not to be exercised until 
the occasion for it is imperative. There has been no occasion 
for its exercise from ITSi) to this hour; there, is no case to-d.ay 
calling for it, and 1 am more than willing that the Territories 
shall continue to govern themselves in their own way, so long 
as they respect the rights of all the people of the States and their 
own fellow-citizens. I will not insult them by supposing them 
capable of disregarding the Constitution as expounded by the 
Supreme Court; I will not insult thcin by assuming that they 
are incapable of honest self-frovemmeut, and are cajiablc of 
abusing power to the injury of their fellow-citizens. If they . 
should show themselves incapable of honestly exercising the 
powers with which we have intrusted them, perhaps the judi- 
ciary may lie adequate to right the wrong. It may be that the 
powers of tho Executive may be adequate to th.at purpc^e; but if 
all these safeguards fail, I shall then be prepared to protect all 
the rights of all the people in tho Territories as well as elsewhere 
by all the powers of the Government. But I shall prescribe no 
new tests of party fealtii to Northern Denf.cr'tt.- ; those who re- 
main of them have hitherto stood with fidelity and honor upon 
their engagements. They have maintained the truth to their 
own hurt: they have displayed a patriotism, a mngnanimity, 
rarely equalleil, never excelled, in the world's history; andl 
shall endeavor, in sunshine and storm, — with your ii/:i>rob'iiion 
if lean get it, without it if /must, — to stand by ih' nt with a fidel- 
ity equal to their great deserts. If yon will stand with me and 
them, we shall conquer faction, in the North and in the South." 



List of Speeches, &c., Printed and Puhlished % Murphy & Co. 



Non-hitirfercnce. by Congress loith Slavery in the Terriloriea. 

SPF.ECH of Hon. S. A. DOUGLA.S of Illinois, in the Senate. 
-May l-'ith and Ifith. l.'^O. S2 50 per lUO. It will be supplied 
to clubs, and others, in lots of 5,000 and upwards ;it a time, at 

$21) per 1.000 

rOrUI.AR SOVKREIGNTY in the TERRTTOKIKS. The 
DEMOCRATIC RECORD. The purpose of this publication is 
to exhibit the Democratic Record, us it was made by the Repre- 
sentative men of tho Partv, on the Doctrine of Popul.ir Sover- 
eignty in tho Territories. .".24 pp., §1 50 per 100, $12 .50 per 1,000 

BEMARKS on POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, as Maintained 
and JJenied.resiientivi'ly, by.lL-l)(;E DOUGr-AS,aud .\TIoitNEY 
Genekai. black. l!y A SoiiriiEr:N Citi/k.v. 

40 jiagcs, $2 50 per 100— $20 per 1,000 



SPEECH of TIo.v.- REVERDY .JOHNSON, of MarTl.and, de- 
livered before the Political friends of IION. STEPHEN A. 
DOUGLAS, at a Meeting in Faneuil Hall, B.ist.m. .June 7th, 
It'liO. To w hich is added the Letter of Hon R'Vcnl v Johnson, 
to the Chairman of the Donglas Meeting in New Yorl;, May 
22d, 1860 16 pages, SIO per 1,000 

ADDRESS of the NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE 
to the Democr.acy of the United States... 16 pages, $10 per 1,000 

DOUGLAS' SPEECH, on INVASION of STATES. 

16pages, $10 per 1,000 
DOUGLAS' SPEECH, in Reply to SEWARD. 

8 pages, SS per 1,000 
SPEECH of Hon. THOJIAS J. B \RR, of New York, in vindi- 
cation of Catholic and Adopted Citizens...l6 pages, $10 per 1,000 



AdJresa^ordcrs to JMURPHY & CO., Printers and Pitblisiiers, 

182 Baltimore street, Baltimore, Md. 

Or J. J. JONES, 350 Pennsi/lvania Avenue, Washington, B. C. 



negroes ! Why, -when you concede the fact that 
they are cm^lled to any government at all, 
you concede ihe points that are contendei for 
here. * * * * * 

" They [the committee of thirteen on Mr. 
Clay's resolutions] make the disiinction that the 
people of the Territories are to yoveni thenuelves 
in respect to the rights of all kinds of property but 
African slaves. I icant to know whi/ this excep- 
tion ? Upon what principle is it made ? Is it not 
as important as arry other right in property ? 
^Vhy, then, should it be excepted and reserved? 
And, sir, if you reserve it, to ichom do you reserve 
it? To this Congress? No, sir; you deny it 
to the people, and you deny it to the govern- 
ment here. * * * -;;• * * 

" Now, Mr. President, I have a word to say 
to the honorable Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. 
Davis.] He insists th;it I am not in favor of 
protecting pmperty, and that his amen Imeut is 
offered for tlie purpose of protecting property' 
under the Constitution. Now, sir, 1 ask you 
Vfh.-.t authority he has fur assuming (hat ? Do I 
not denre to protect property because I wish to allow 
these people to puss such laws as they deem proper 

EESPKCiI.NG THEIR EIGHTS IN PKOPEIHT, WITH- 
OUT ANY EXCEPTION ? He might just as well say 
that I am opposed to protecting proptrt^' in 
merchandise, in steamboats, in cattle, in real 
estate, as to say that I am opposed to prottciing 
property of any other description ; for I desire 
to put them all on an eqiiuliiy, a.nd allow the 

PEOPLE TO make THEIR OWN LAWS JN RESPECT 
TO THE WHOLE OF THEM." — Cong. Gl-jbe, Yol. 21, 
part 2, pp. 1113, 1116. 

Extract of Mr. Douglas's speech, at Chi- 
CAgo, October 23, 1850 : — 

" The first three of these measures, [the Com- 
promise Measures,] California, Utah, and New 
Llexico — 1 prepared with my own hands, and 
reported from the Committee on Territories, as 
its Chairman, in the prtcise shape in which they 
now stand on the statute books, with one or two 
important amendments, for which I also voted. 
I, therefore, hold myself responsible to you, as 
my constituents, for those measures as th^y 
passed. If there is any thing wrong in them, 
hold me accountable ; if there is any thing of 
merit, give the credit to those who passed tho 
bills. These measures are predicated on the great 
fundamental principle that every people ought to 
possess the right of forming and regulating their 
own internal concerns and domestic institutions, in 
their own way. * * •"- * * 

* * * *«To question their competency to 
do this, was to deny their capac'ty for self-gov- 
ernment. If they have the rf^'jiiisite intelligence 
and honesty to be intrusted with the ena<-t nent 
of 1 iws for the g wernment of white men, I know 
of no reason why they should not be deemed 
competent to legislate for the negro. If they are 
BufBciently enlightened to make liws for the pro- 
tection of life, l.berty, and prnperty — of morals 
and education — to determine the relation of hus- 
band and wife, of pnrent and child, / am not 
aware that it requires •■■ y higher degree of civiliza 



These things are all confided by the Constitution to 
each State to decide for itself, and I know of no 

reason why THE SAME PRINCIPLE SHOULD NOT 
BE EXTENDED TO THE TERRITORIES. My VOteS 

and acts have been in accordance with these 
views in all cases, except the instances in which 
I voted under your instructions. Those were 
TOUR VOTES, AND NOT MINE. / entered my pro- 
test against them at the time, before and after they 
were recorded, and shall never hold myself respon- 
sible for them:" 

Extract of the report of the Committee 
on Territories, accompanying the Nebraska 
bill, when first reported' to the Senate by 
Mr. Douglas, chairman, January 4, 1854: — • 

" In the judgment of your committee, these 
measures (compromise measures of 1850) were 
intended to have a far more comprehensive and 
enduring effect than the mere adjustment of the 
ditSculties arising out of the recent acquisition 
of Mexican territory. They were designed to 
establish certain great principles, which would 
not ouly furnish adequate remedies for existing 
evils, but in all time to come, avoid the perils of a 
similar agitation, by icilhdrawing the question of 
slavery from the halls of Congress and the political 
arena, and committing it to the arbitrament of those 
who were immediately interested in and alone re- 
sponsible for its consequences." 

Extract of the speech of Mr. Douglas, 
closing the debate in the Senate, on the 
night of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska 
act, March 3, 1S54 :— 

"Mr. President, as there has been so much 
misrepresentation upon this point, I must be 
permitted to repeat that the doctrine of the 
report of the committee, as has been coi;clu;ive]y 
proved by these extracts, is — 

" First. That the whole question of slavery 
should be withdrawn from the h:ills of Cungrc^a 
and the political arena, and committ'd to the 
arbitrament of those who are immediately in- 
terested in and alone responsible for its exist- 
ence. 

" Second. In applying this principle to the 
Territories and the new States to be formed 
therefrom, all questions pertaining to slavery 
were to be referred to the people residing 
therein. 

" I'hird. That the committee proposed to 
carry these propositions and principles into 
effect in the precise language of the compromise 
measures of 1850. 

"Are not these propositions identical with the 
principles and provisions of the bill on your 
table ? If there is a hair's breadth of discrep- 
ancy between the two, I ask any Senator to rise 
in his place and point it out. Both rest upon 
the great principle which forms the basis of all 
our institutions — that the people are to decide the 
question for themselves, subject only to the Consti- 
tution." — App. Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 33d Cong., 
vol. 29, p. 327. 

Extract of the remarks of Ilon. W, A 



tion to regulate the affairs of master and servant. Ricuardso-V, of Illinois, (who, as Chairman 



(5 



point of view, (hat ever was proposed for po- 
litical discus-ion. There are those wlio hold 
that the Constitution carries oil the institutions 
of tiiis country into all the territories of the 
Union; that hlavery, bi'ing one of the institu- 
tions recognized liy the Constitution, goes with 
the Constitution into the territories of the United 
Stales ; and that when tlie territorial government 
is organ'zed, the people have no right to prohibit 
slavery there, until tiicy come to form a State 
coustiiution. That is what my friend calls 
•Southern doctrine.' There is another class 
■who hold that the people of tlie territories, in 
fho'r teri-itorial stale, and whilst acting as a 
territorial logi-lature, have a right to decide 
upon tlic question whether slavery shall exist 
there during thtir territorial state; and that has 
been dublied ' squatter sovereignty.' Now, j'ou 
perceive tliat there is but one point of difference 
betwetn the advocates of the two doctrines. 
Each holds that the people have the right to 
decide the question in tlie territory; one holds 
that it can be done through the territorial legis- 
lature, and whilst it has a ten itoi-ial existence ; 
the other holds that it can be done only wlien 
they come to form a State constitution. But 
those who hold that the territorial legislature 
cannot pass a law prohibiting slavery, admit 
that unUss the territorial legislature pass laws 
for its protection, slavery will not go there. 
Therefore, practically, a majority of the peoi)le 
represented in the territorial legislature decides 
the question. AVliether they decide it by pro- 
hibiting ir, according to the one doctrine, or V^y 
refusing to pass laws to protect it, as contended 
for by the other party, is immaterial. The 
majoriiy of the people, by the action of the terri- 
torial ler/islature, will decide the question; and all 
must abide the decision when made. (Great ap- 
plause. ) 

"JJy friend, you observe that — no matter 
■what the issue wffieh is presented — I stand upon 
a principle. There I planted myself in the com- 
mencement of this argument, — -the right of the 
people to self-government. I intend to maintain 
it, to stand by it. to carry it out, to etiforce it. 
If it operate to the exclusion of the people of 
my section of tlie country from these territories, 
be it so; it is the constitution of the country, 
and they have no rigiit to complain. If it ope- 
rate in their behalf and for their protection, I 
call upon you to say, is it not right that they 
should have the benefit of it?" 

Extracts of a speech of the Hon. Jonx C. 
Breckin'Ridoe, of Kentucky, (now Vice- 
President of the United States,) in the 
House of Kepresentatives, March 23,1854: — 

"r.ut if non-intervention by Congress be the 
priniijde Ih^^t underlies the compromise of 1850, 
then the proliibition of 1820, being inconsistent 
■with that principle, should be removed and 
perfect non-intervention thus be established by 
law. 

"Among the many mi^reprcsentntions sent 
to the country by some of the enemies of this 
bill, i)crliaps none is more llagrant than the chart/e 
that it piroposes to legislate slavery into Nebraska 



and Kansas. Sir, if the bill contained such a 
feature it would not receive my vote. Tlie right to 
establish involves the correlative right to prohibit, 
and, denying both, I would vote for neither. I go 
further, and express the opinion that a clause 
legislating slavery into those Tvrritories could 
not command one Southcin vote in this House. 
It is due to both sections of the country and to 
the people to expose this groundless charge. 
What, then, is the present condition of Nebraska 
and Kansas? AVhj-, sir, there is no government, 
no slavery, and very little population there, (for 
your Federal laws exclude your citizens;) but a 
law remains on the statute-book forever pro- 
hibiting slivery in these Territories. It is pro- 
posed simply to tiike off this proliibition. but not 
to make an enactment in aflirmance of slavery 
there. Now, in the absence of anj' law establish- 
ing slavery in that region, previous to the pro- 
hibiting act, it is too clear for dispute, that tlio 
repeal of the prohibition has not the aflirmativo 
effect of fixing slavery in that country. The 
effect of the repeal, therefore, is neither to esta- 
blish nor to exclude, but to leave the future con- 
dition of the Territories dependent wholly upon the 
action of the inhabitants, subject only to such 
limitations as (he Federal Constitution may 
impose. But to guard fully ngainst honest mis- 
construction, and even against malicious per- 
version, the language of the bill is perfectly 
explicit on this point." * * * 

" It will be observed that the rights of the 
people to regulate in their own way all their 
domestic institutions is left wholly untouched, 
except that whatever is done must be done in 
accordance with the Constitution, — the supremo 
law for us all. And the rights of property under 
the Constitution, as well as legislative nction, is 
properly left to the decision of the Federal ju- 
diciary. This avoids a contested issue which it 
is hardly in the competency of Congress to decide, 
and refers it to the proper tribunal." * * * 

"Then, sir, neither the purpose nor the effect 
of the bill is to legislate slavery into Nebraska 
and Kansas, but its effect is to sweep awny this 
vestige of Congressional dictation on this sub- 
ject, to allow the free citizens of this Union to 
enter the common territory with the Constitu- 
tion and the bill alone in their hand«, and to re- 
mit the decision of tiieir rights under both to the 
courts of tlie country. AVho can go before his 
constituents refusing to stand on the platform of 
the Constitution? Who can make a case to 
them of refusing to abide the decision of the 
courts of the Union?" * * * * 

" Sir, I cave nothing about refined distinctions 
or subtleties or verbal criticism. I repeat tho 
broad and pl;iin proposition, that if Congress 
may intervene on this subject, it may intervene 
on any other, and having thus surrendeied tlio 
principle, and broken awny from constitutional 
limitations, you are driven into the very Inp of 
arbitrary power. By this doctrine, you maj 
cre;'t a despotism under tlie American system. 
The whole theory is a libel on our institutions 
It carries us back to the abhorrent principles o( 
British colonial authority, ngainst which w« 
made Hie issue of Independence. I have neve/ 
acquiesced in this odious claim, and will noi» 



believe that it can abide tlie test of public scru- 
tiny." — See App. Cong. Globe, vol. 29, p. 441. 

Mr. Breckixridge. in a speech at Lexing- 
ton, Kentucky, in response to the congratu- 
lations of his neiglibors on his having ob- 
tained the nomination for Vice-President, 
on Monday, June D, 1856, made the fol- 
lowing remarks defining his position on the 
question of popular sovereignty and non- 
intervention : — 

"Upon tlie distracting question of domestic 
elavery, their position is clear. The whole 
power of the Democratic organization is pledged 
to the following propositions: that Congress shall 
not intervene upon this subject in the States, in the 
Territories, or in the District of Columbia; that 
the people of each Territory shall determine the 
question for themselves, and be admitted into the 
Union upon a footing of perfect equality with the 
original States, without discrimination on account 
of the allowance or prohibition of slavery." 

Extract of a speech of the Hon. James 
L. Orr, of South Carolina, (late Speaker of 
the House,) in the House of Representa- 
tives, December 11, 1850 : — 

"Now, I desire the gentleman to understand 
that the Democratic party, North or South, do 
not attach the importance to this issue on squat- 
ter sovereignty which he seems to attach to it 
by the attempts he has made to magnify it as 
the chief feature of the Nebraskii-Kansas bill. 
The great object sought to be accomplislied in 
the introduction and passage of that bill was 
this: the continual agitation of the slavery ques- 
tion upon the floors of Congress had produced 
discord and dissension here ; it had alienated the 
different parties of the Confederacy from each 
other, and was threatening the existence of the 
Government itself; and hence it was thought 
best by a majority of the members of Congress, 
iif 1854, to transfer, as far as possible, this agi- 
tation from the Halls of Congress to the Terri- 
tories themselves. Hence, the great and lead- 
ing feature in that bill was, to transfer the legis- 
lation and power of Congress on the slavery, 
and all other subjects, to tlie Tenitorial legis- 
latures, and let the popular wull there shape and 
form the laws for their own government with- 
out restriction save the proviso that suth legis- 
lation should be consistent with the constitution 
and general laws of the United States. 

" This was the great idea in the legislation 
of 1854, and it has been endorsed in the late 
election by the people. 

"Now, I admit that there is a diifereace of 
opinion amongst Democrats as to whether this 
feature of squatter sovereignty be in the bill or 
not. But the great jjoint upon which the Demo- 
cratic party at Cincinnati rested was, that the 
government of tiio Territories had been trans- 
ferred from Congress, and carrying out the spirit 
and gei.ius of our institutions had been given to 
the people of the Tenitories. I am one of those 
who do not believe in the doctrine of s'quatter 
eovereignty. I do not believe that the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill establishes or recognizes squatter 
Bovereignty within the limits of the Territories 



of Kansas and Nebraska : and the process of 
reasoning by which I reach that result is, that 
I see no authority in the Constitution of the 
United States which authorizes Congress to pass 
the Wilmot proviso or any anti-slavery restric- 
tions in the Territories ; and I do not apprehend 
how Congress, not having the power itself, can 
create an authority and invest a creature with 
greater power and authority than it possesses 
itself. I know that there are other gentlemen 
belonging to the Democratic party who think 
that the territorial legislatures are invested with 
the authority to prohibit or introduce slavery 
within the Territories. 

"But the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Smith] the other day struck the true point in 
this controversy, and it takes all the wind out 
of the sails of my friend from Kentucky, and 
leaves him high and dry upon land ; and I invite 
his attention to the statements in reference to it. 

"I say, although I deny that squatter sove- 
reignty exists in the Territories of Kansas and 
Nebraska bytvirtue of this bill, it is a matter 
practically of little consequence whether it does 
or not; and I think I shall be able to satisfy the 
gentleman of that. The gentleman knows that 
in every slaveholding community of this Union, 
we have local legi.-lation and local police regula- 
tions appertaining to that institution, without 
Vidiieh the institution would not only be value- 
less, but a curse to the community; without them 
the slaveholder could not enforce his rights 
when invaded by others; and if you had no local 
legislation for the purpose of giving protection, 
the institution would be of no value. I can ap- 
peal to every gentleman upon this floor who 
represents a slaveholding constittiency to attest 
the truth of what I have said. 

" Now, the legislative authority of a Territory is 
invested icith a discretion to vote for or against laws. 
We think they ought to pass laws in every Territory 
when the Territory is open to settlement and slave- 
holders go there to protect slave property. But if 
they decline to pass such laws, what is the remedy? 
None, sir. If the majority of the people are op- 
posed to the institution, and if they do not desire it 
engrafted upon their Territory, all they have to do 
is simply to decline to pass laivs in the territorial 
legislature to prohibit it. Now, I ask the gentle- 
man what is the practical importance to result 
from the agitation and discussion of this ques- 
tion as to whether squatter sovereignty does or 
does not exist? Practically, it is a matter of 
little moment." — See Cong. Globe, 2d Session 
34th Congress, pp. 103, 104. 

Extracts of a speech of Hon. A. H. Ste- 
PHEXS, of Georgia, dehvered in the House 
of Representatives, February 17, 1854: — 

" The wlxole question of slavery or no slavery 
was to be left to the people of the Territories, 
whether north or south of 3lj° 30'' or any other 
line. The question was to be taken out of Congress, 
where it had been improperly thrust from the begin- 
ning, and to be left to the people concerned in the 
matter to decide for themselves. This, I say, was 
the position originally held by the South when 
the Missouri restriction was at first proposed. 
The principle upon which thcit position rests, 



8 



Hes at the very founditinn of all our Republican 
institutions; it is that the citizens of every dis- 
tinct and separate comnuinity or State sliouhl 
have tlie riglit to govern themselves in their 
doniej-tic mutters as they please, and tliat tlicy 
should be free iVoni tlie internieddlitij; reslric- 
tiops and arbitrary dictation on such matters 
from any power or Government in which tliey 
have no voice. It was out of a violation of this 
very principle to a great extent tliat the war of 
tho lievolution sprung. The South was always 
ou tlie llepublican .-ide of tliis question, while 
the iSorth — no; or, at least, I will not say the 
entire North, for there have aUvays been some 
o-f thoni with the South on tliis question; but I 
will say, while a majority of the North, under 
the free-soil lead of that section, up to the set- 
tlement of the contest iu 18oU — were on the 
opposite side. 

"The doctrine of the restrictionists or free- 
soilcrs, or those that hold that Congress ought 
to impose Ihi-ir arbitrury mandates upon the 
people of the Teiritories in this? particular, 
whether the people l^e willing or unwilling, is 
the doctrine of Lord North and his adherents, 
in the British Parliament, towards the colonies, 
duiing his administration. He and they claimed 
the right to govern the territoriLS in 'all cases 
whatsoever,' notwithstanding the want of repre- 
sentation ou their part. The doctrine of the 
South upon this question has been, and is, the 
doctrine of tlie wliigs in 1775 and 177G. It 
involves the principle that the citizens of every 
community should have a voice in their govern- 
ment. This was the doctrine of the people of 
I'oston iu 1775, when the response was made 
throughout the colonies, ' The cause of Boston 
is the c:iuso of us all.' And if there be any here 
now who call themselves whigs, arrayed against 
this great principle of republican government, 
1 will do towards them as Burke did iii Eng- 
land, I will appeal from 'the new to the old 
whics. '" * * * -K- * 

"This, sir, is what is called the Compromise 
of 1850, so far as this territorial question is con- 
cerned. It was adopted after the policy of di- 
viding territory between the two sections, North 
and South, was wholly abandoned, discarded, 
and spurned by the Nortli. It was based upon 
the truly republican aud national policy of 
taking this di.^turbing element out of Congress, 
and leaving the wliole question of slavery in the 
Territories to the people there to settle it for 
themselves. And it is in vindication of that 
new principle — then established for the first 
time in the history of our Government — in the 
year 1850, the middle of the nineteenth century, 
that we, the friends of the Nebraska bill, 
whether from tlie North or South, now call upon 
this Hou.sc .".nd the country, to carry out, in 
good faith, ami give effect to the spirit and in- 
tent of those important measures of territorial 
legislation." — Sec App. Cong. Globe, 1st Session, 
33d Cong. vol. 20, p. 195. 

Mr. Stepue.ns again expressed his views 
on this subject in the House of Represents 
ativos on the 17th of January, 1850, as 
follows : — 

''Now, sir, as I have stated, I voted for this 



bill, leaving the whole matter to (he people to 
settle for themselves, subject to no restriction 
or limitation but the Constitution. AVith this 
distinct understanding of its import and mean- 
ing, and with a deteniiinatiun that the existence 
of this power being disputed and doubted, it 
would be better and much more consistent with 
our old-time republican principles, to let the 
people settle it, than for Congress to do it 
And although my own opinion is that the people, 
under the limitations of the Constitution, have 
not the rightful power to exclude slavery, so 
long as they leniain in a territorial cundition, 
yet I am willing that they may determine it for 
themselves, and when they please. / shall never 
negative any law Ihey may pass, if it is the result 
of a fair legislative expression of the popular will. 
Never! I am willing that the territoiial legisla- 
ture may act upon the subject when and how 
they may think proper." — See Appendix to the 
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 31.th Congress, 
vol. 33, p. 62. 

Extract of the speech of the Hon. J. 
P. Benjamin, of Louisiana, delivered in the 
Senate, on the 25th May, 1854: — 

"I find, then, that this bill, retracing the 
steps of Federal legislation so far as it inter- 
fered with this subject from the year 1820 to 
the present lime, proposes to go back to the tra- 
ditions of the fathers. It proposes to put this 
Congress in the position occupied by every Con- 
gress up to the year 1820. It proposes to an- 
nounce, as a principle, to the people of the 
United States that the general Government is 
not to legislate at all upon this question of sla- 
very. It is not to legislate to extend it; it is 
not to legislate to prohibit it ; it is a forbidden 
subject. The flaming sword ought to guard all 
access to it. No impious foot ought to endeavor 
to tread within its sacred precincts. That is the 
princii)le which I find in this bill, and that is 
the principle which I wish to see established in 
the country; and when it shall have been esta- 
blished, it will be in vain for fanatics, either 
North or South, to endeavor to create any per- 
manent excitement in the minds of the American 
people. Tlie aliment is gone. You may light 
the flame, but the fuel may be wanting. It will 
die out of itself. And then, and then alone, 
shall we he able to bear patiently with the taunts 
thrown out this day by the Senator from Ohio; 
then alone shall we be able to hear with compo- 
sure his threat that his war-cry is issued against 
the South, from this time forward, and that all 
his energies will be devoted to repealing this 
lull, and overthrowing the principles upon which 
it is based. 

" Let the American people understand this 
subject in its true bearing ; let the North once be 
disabused of the false impression that the South 
desires any advantage over it, or any unequal 
share of the privileges of the Government ; let 
our friends in the Northern States once be con- 
vinced that all we ask and desire is (he simple 
privilege of being let alone ; and can we ask 
less? Blest or cursed, as you please, with an 
institution which we find established among us 
when we were born, and which will probably 
exist when we descend to our graves, an insti- 



9 



tntion which is so firmly knit among us that it 
cannot be torn out without tearing up the very 
heart-strings of society, is it wonderful, is it un- 
reasonable, is it not most reasonable, that we 
ghould ask gentlemen from other sections of the 
Confederacy simply to let us alone? We ask of 
you the passage of no law ; ice ask of you (he enact- 
ment of no statute, any further than to put us back 
Just in that position occupied by our fathers when 
they acted upon the principle which ice now invoke, 
of leaviity each section of the Confederacy free to 
establish and maintain its own internal domestic in- 
stitutions, and promote its own happiness as it sees 
proper. Here is then a second great principle 
trhich I see in this bill, and for the establishment 
of which, I say, as other Senators have said upon 
this floor, I will sacrifice this amendment and a 
thousand others like it. 

"But this is not all. The Senator from Georgia 
[Mr. Toombs] to-day spoke of a third principle, 
and he anticipated me in tliat respect. There 
is the great fundamental principle of American 
liberty contained in the provisions of the bill. 
It is that principle which laid the foundation of 
American independence. It is that principle for 
the establishment of which we owe so many bless- 
ings to the memory of our Revolutionary sires — 
ay, sir, to our ante-Revolutionary sires. They 
first planted on this continent the germ which has 
grown up into a lofty tree, that with its spread- 
ing branches overshadows and protects the 
nation. They first enunciated in the face of 
the civilized world, in the face of the then 
almost omnipotent English Parliament, the prin- 
ciple that man had a right to self-government. 
They first declared that it was against the in- 
herent rights of mankind for a government to 
legislate for the local interests of a distant de- 
pendency. They declared — a«d it is upon that 
your Revolution is founded— that the people of 
the United States, although colonial dependencies 
of Great Britain, were entitled to representation 
in the British Parliament, or to be exonernted 
from the duties of British subjects. All that is 
asked now is the extension of this same principle to 
the 7'errilorics of the United States. Here, then, 
is another third great principle, it is a great 
measure of conciliation between conflicting opi- 
nions in different parts of the confederacy, con- 
flicting opinions which have found their enuncia- 
tions upon this floor. The honorable Senator from 
Michigan, [Mr. Cass,] in a speech replete with 
Bound argument and true Republican principles, 
the force of which it would be difficult to auswer, 
has advocated in this Senate the doctrine that 
there is an inherent right, under the Constitution 
of the United States, in the people of the Terri- 
tories to govern themselves. He denies the con- 
ftitutional power of Congress to legislate for those 
Territories. The Senator from Indiana, [Mr. 
Pettit,] and the Senator from North Carolina, 
[Mr. Badger,] difi"er in opinion from him; but 
as the llenator from Georgia said this morning, 
both a {rec that it is unwise to exercise the 
power .n contradiction to the will of the people, 
even if we admit its existence. We fnd, then, 
that this principle of the i7tdependciice and self- 
goveri-.metit of the people in the distant Territories 
of the Confederacy, harmonizes all these conflicting 



opinions, and enables us to banish from the halls 
of Congress another fertile sourca of discontent arid 
excitement.'^ — See Appendix Congressional Globe, 
1st Sess. 33d Cong., vol. 29, page 7G7. 

Extract of the speech of lion. IIowelIi 
Cobb, of Georgia, at Concord, New Hamp- 
shire, in February, 1856 : — 

* * * " On the subject of slavery, as upoa 
all other issues arising before the people, there 
is but one question and one answer. It is not 
whether slavery is right or wrong, or whether 
it is a blessing or a curse, or whether it shall be 
increased or abolished, but the only questioa 
is, What says the Constitution? And the onlj 
answer should be, I will do what the Constitution 
requires to be done. The man who objects ta 
this doctrine wars upon the principle of self- 
government and the Constitution of his country ; 
and for such a man I have no word either of 
argument or appeal." 

* * * <i Apply this principle to the ques- 
tion which now so deeply agitates the public 
mind of this country, and threatens to disturb 
its peace and quiet. In the Kansas bill it was 
provided that this vexed question of slavery 
should be left where the blood of the Revolution 
put it ; where the great principles of self-govern- 
ment leave it — to be decided by the people of 
Kansas, subject only to the Constitution of the 
United States. That bill declares, ' it being the 
true intent and meaning of this act not to legis- 
late slavery into any Territory or State, nor to 
exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people 
thereof free to form and regulate their domestic 
institutions in their own way, subject only to the * » 
Constitution of the United States.' Is not thi« 
provision of the Kansas law in strict conformity 

to the principles which I have been advocating 
before you ? 

" Are not the people of that Territory better capa- 
ble of decidiny that question for themselves than 
either you or the people of Georgia, or any other 
State, for them ? If they want slavery, you have no 
right to prevent; if they want to exclude it, the 
people of Georgia have no right to force it upon 
them. Give to them the same right which you now 
exercise; and when their decision is pronounced, lei 
the people of all the Slates abide by that decision, 
just as we now abide by the decision already made 
by the respective States. The people who have gone 
or may hereafter go to Kansas to make it their 
homes, are just as honest and intelligent and as 
capable of self-government as they were before 
they went there. They need no advisers, or 
counsellors, or guardians; and had it not been 
for the organized intermeddling of outsiders, 
whose consciences were more deeply moved 
about other people's sins than their own, would 
have quietly and peaceably decided this questioa 
in their own way, conformably to their owu 
wishes and interests, under the organic law of 
the Territory. AVhen the people of Kansas shall 
have so decided, I am prepared to carry out 
their decision, whatever it may be ; and shall 
vote for her admission whenever she appliea 
with a sufficient population, and presents a con- 
stitution republican in its form, and fairly repre- 
senting the sentiment of her people; and the 



1^ 



fact of her applying as a free or slave State shall 
not influence mj* action. Believing the principle 
to be light, I shall stand hy it, no matter what 
result iL may work out. 

" Yoii haOe bam told thai the South demands the 
eslablishment of slavery in the Territories. I am 
here to deny the charge, and Wand it as false. We 
make no such demand. On (he contrary, ive pro- 
test ayainst Conyressional intervention. Our doc- 
trine is, to leave it to those who are the most deeply 
interested in its decision. Wo t<tand upon the 
priuiriple which I have been urgiug bel'ure you, 
and (jiTer it aia the only just and con.stitutional 
solution of an angry and exciting controversy. 
It has been adopted, and let us maintain it. It 
will give security to the Cohstjtution and peace 
to the Union, ll will calm the troubled waters 
of sectional strife, and restore harmony and 
good feeling to a distracted country. It com- 
mends itself to us from its own intrinsic merit. 
It comes to us sanctioned by the wisdom of our 
fatliers. It is right in theory and right in prac- 
tice. It has worked, well iif the past, and will 
work well in the future. It presents a common 
ground upon which all true men of every State 
:;ud section can stand harmoniously together. 
It compromises no principle and sacritices. no 
interest. It is the doctrine of a common consti- 
tution ; let it be defined by a united people. 

"Principles never chanyc. Truth is miyhty, and 
will prevail.", 

Extract of the speech of Gen. Jcseph 
Lane, of Oregon, at Concord, New Ilamp- 
ehire, in September, IhioG : — 

"Now, gentlemen, there is nothing particular, 
nothing new, in that, for it is not the first time 
that Congress has pa.-^sed laws -organizing Ter- 
ritories. But that law organizing the Territo- 
ries of Kansas and Nebraska placed in the hands 
of the Opposition a pretext for attacking Demo- 
cratic principles. They raised a hue and cry 
throiighout the country that the area of slavery 
was to be extended — that new slave States were 
to be added to the Union. Is there any thing in 
tlio Knnsas-Nehraska bill to justify this hue and 
cxy. and the consequent excitement? 

"There is nothing in the law, gentlemen, but 
what every enlightened American heart should 
approve. The idea incorporated in the Kansas- 
Nelraska hill is the true American principle.: for 
the bill does not establish or prohibit slavery, but 
leaves the people of these Territories perfectly free 
to reyulule their own local affairs in their otcn tvay. 
Is there any man who can object to that idea? 
Is there any American citizen who can oppose 
that principle? 

"(ientleinon, I desire to say to you that the 
principle incorporated into the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill is the very princijile in defence of which 
your forefathers tnlered into the service of their 
country in thcliovolutiunary war ; for the Ameri- 
can clonics, two 3-ears previous to the Doclara- 
{■ion of Independence, asserted this same principle 
we now tiiKl incorporated in the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill. ' ' . ■' ■ „ 

"Upon examination, you will find that the 
Declaration of Rights, made October 14, ITT-l, 
asserts that (he people of the several colonies 'are 



entitled to a free and exclusive power of Ugislalion 
in their several provincial legislatures in all cases 
of internal polity.' This was refused by the 
Crown, but reasserted by our forefathers. Upon 
this issue tlie battles of the Revolution were 
fought; by the blood of our fathers this princi- 
ple of self-government was established. This 
right, refused by the King, was secured, conse- 
crated, and established by the best blood that 
ever flowed in the veins of man. Would you 
now refuse to the people of the Territories the 
rights your noble sires demanded of the Crown, 
and won by their blood — thus placing yourselves 
in opposition to the right of self-government iu 
tli.e Territories, thereby occupying the very po- 
sition towards the Territories that George III. 
did to the colonies? 

"The simple question involved hero is, 'Are 
the people caj)able of regulating their internal 
affairs, or must Congress regulate those afi'airs 
for them ?' It is strictly the doctrine of Cou- 
gressional non-intervention. Now, if that idea 
is the correct one — if it is true that the Ameri- 
can people are capable of self-government — then 
the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill are 
right, and opposition to that bill is wrong; con- 
sequently, dangerous to the best interests of the 
country. 

"I only desire to say to you further, gentle- 
men, that I hail from the shores of the Pacific. 
I come from a Territory where the people are 
caj^able of managing their own domestic affairs. 
I come from a Territory where they would not 
thank the people of New Hampshire, nor tho 
people who are represented by my honorable 
friend from South Carolina, nor the people from 
any other State of this Union, for interfering in 
their local and domestic affairs. I come from a 
Territory that had imposed upon her, in her or- 
ganic act, the Wilmot proviso. I went out un- 
der the law of Congress as the first governor 
of Oregon, and the only word 1 heard uttered 
against this law was, that Congress should have 
interfered in any of our affairs. 'Why,' it was 
asked, 'should Congress prohibit us from exercising 
our judgment in relation to slavery, or any other 
local question ?' The question of slavery is safe 
with the people ; and it is no more restricted by 
the AVilmot proviso than it would be without it, 
for slavery is a thing that will regulate itself. 

"Climate, soil, products, commerce, business, 
profit on investment — these are tlie things that 
must and will settle the question of slavery. 
Leave Kansas and Nebraska to look after their 
own affairs, .and if there is a man among you 
who would j<iin an Emigrant Aid Society for the 
purpose of interfering iu the domestic concerns 
of Kansas, set him down a^ an unfortunate man 
— as one who does not understand the true policy 
of Ids country — as one who does not know the 
evil he is about to inflict upon the Constitution 
and tlie Union. If these Emigrant .Vid Societies 
and the agitators of this question would leave 
the people of Kansas to settle this matter for 
themselves, there would be no difficulty there. 

"The question of slavery is a most perplexing 
one, and ought not to be agitated. Wc should 
leave it with the State where it constitutionally 
exists, and the people of the Territories, to pro- 



11 



hibit or establish, as to them may seem right 
and proper." 

"All that the Democracy asks in relation to 
this matter is, that the people of the Territory 
should be left perfectly free to settle the ques- 
tion of slavery for themselves, without the in- 
terference of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or 
any other State." 

" If every American citizen had that feeling, 
that love of country, that love of the Constitu- 
tion, of the right of the States, and of the prin- 
ciple of allowing the people to regulate their 
own affairs in their respective localities, we 
should have peace and quiet among the people 
of all the States." 

Extract of the Special Message of Presi- 
dent Pierce to Congress on Kansas Atiairs, 
of January 24, 185tj-. — 

" The act to organize the Territories of Nebras- 
ka and Kansas was a manifestation of the legisla- 
tive opinion of Congress on two great points of 
constitutional construction : one, that the desig- 
nation of the boundaries of a new Territory, 
and provision for its political organization and 

'administration as a Territory, are measures 
"which of right fall within the powers of the 
General Government ; and the other, that the 
inhabitants of any such Territory, considered as 
an inchoate State, are entitled, in the exercise 
of self-government, to determine for themselves 

■ what shall be their own domestic institutions, 
subject only to the Constitution and the laws 
duly enacted by Congress under it, and to the 
power of the existing States to decide, according 
to the provisions and princijales of the Constitu- 
tion, at what time the Territory shall be received 
as a State into the Union. Such are the great 
political rights which are solemnly declared and 
afiBrmed by that act." — Cong. Globe, vol. 32, 
parti, p. 296. ' ' ' 

Extract of the remarks of Hon. W. A. 
Richardson', of Illinois, the Democratic can- 
didate for Speaker, in reply to certain 
questions propounded to him by Mr. Zolli- 
cofler, of Tennessee, on the 12th of Janu- 
ary, 1856 : — 

"5Ir. Richardson. Mr. Clerk, gentlemen 
have chosen, by written interrogatories, to in- 
quire into the political opinions of gentlemen 
who have been voted for upon this floor, in rela- 
tion to questions past, present, and future. I 
know not, and care not, whether the object is 
discussion here or disciission somewhere else. 
I hold them to the issues presented to me, and I 
shall endeavor to answer their questions as fully, 
freely, and frankly as may be possible. 

"I now send to the Clerk's desk the questions 
■which have been propounded to me, and I ask 
that the first of them mny be read." 

The Clerk read the first question, as follows: — 

"Am I right in supposing that the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Richardson) regards the 
Kansas-Nebraska bill as promotive of the form- 
ation of free States in the Territories of Kan- 
sas and Nebraska "?" 

"Mr. Richardson. In reply to the first ques- 
tion of the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Zol- 



licoffer,) I have to say, that I voted for the bills 
organizing the Territories of Nebraska and Kan- 
sas because I thought them just to all, and I 
defended that vote before niy constituents upon 
that groiuad. I intended then, and I intend 
now, that the people who go there, or who have 
gone there, shall decide the question of slavery 
for themselves, and, so far as I could, admit 
them as States, with or without slavery, as the 
people should decide. In common with North- 
ern and Southern gentlemen, I have said that, 
in my opinion, slaveiy would never go there ; 
but I have never, here or elsewhere, urged that 
as a reason why I voted for that bill. I voted 
for the bill because it W'as just, right, and proper, 
and wanted nothing more to defend myself. I 
repeat here an argument I have made over and 
over again before my constituents, and it is this : 
if a majority of the people of Ivaji.-sas or Nebras- 
ka are in favor of slavery, they will have it ; if 
a majority are opposed to it, then they will not 
have it. This is the practical result of every 
theory advocated by the friends of the Nebraska 
and Kansas bill. I gave my sanction to this 
principle in siipporting the Territorial bills of 
1850, and have uniformly supported the same 
principles since, whenever presented for my 
action, and shall continue to do so in all future 
cases that may arise. It is a principle lying at 
the foundation of all popular governments, that 
the people of each separate or distinct commu- 
nity shall decide for themselves the nature and 
character of the institutions under which they 
shall live; and by this principle I am prepared 
to live and die. I therefore voted for the Ne- 
braska and Kansas bill, neither as a pro-slavery 
nor anti-slavery measure, but as a measure of 
equal right and justice to the people of all sec- 
tions of our common country." 

****** 

[The second question related to the Wilmoi 
proviso, and is, therefore, omitted, as of no per- 
tinence herein.] 

The Clerk then read, the third interrogatory, 
as follows :— :• . ; , ^ 

" Am I right in. supposing that his theory is, 
that the Constitution of the United States does 
not carry slavery to, and protect it in, the Ter- 
ritories of the United States ? That in the terri- 
tory acquired from Mexico and France, (inclu- 
ding Kansas and Nebraska,) the Missouri re- 
striction was necessary to make the territory 
free, because slavery existed thereunder France 
at the time of the acquisition ; but that the Kan- 
sas and Nebraska bill, which repeals that re- 
striction, but neither legislates slavery into those 
Territories nor excludes it therefrom, in his 
opinion, leaves those Territories without either 
local or constitutional law protecting slavery ; 
and that thcretViretho Kansas-Nebraska bill pro- 
motes the formation of slave States in Kansas 
and Nebraska?" 

"Mr. Richardson. The Constitution does not, 
in my opinion, carry the institutions of any of 
the States into the Territories ; but it affords 
the same protection there to the institutions of 
one State as to another. The citizen of Virginia 
is as much entitled, in the common territory, to 
the protection of his property, under the Consti- 



12 



tution, as the citizen of Illinois; but both nre 
di'pendent upon the legislation of the Territo- 
rial governnieut fur laws to protect their pro- 
pert}', of ■whutevir kind it may be. Thus, it 
■will be seen, tliat though t litre may be upon 
this point a dill'eronce theoretically — involving 
que^^tiuns fur judicial decision — yet there is none, 
practically, auioug the friends of non-interven- 
tion b^' Congress, as the practical result is to 
place the decision of the questions in the hands 
of those 'who are most deeply interested in its 
eolution, namely, the people of the Territory, 
who have made it their home, and whose inte- 
rests are most deeply iuvolved in the character of 
the institutions under which they are to live." — 
Conij. OUibe, vol. 32, part 1, p. 222. 

The vote for Speaker next after Mr. Richard- 
son answered to the ijuestious of Mr. ZoUicofFer, 
which was the 108th, resulted in his receiving 
the full Democratic vote — 09 votes, of which 
fifty-three were from the South, and sixteen 
from the North. Those from the South are in 
italics. The 108th vote for Mr. Richardson was 
as follows : — 

'^ For Mr. Richardson. — Messrs. Aiken, Allen, 
Barclay, Barksdale, Bell, Uendley S. Bennett, 
Bocock, Bowie, Boyce, Branch, Burnett, Cadwal- 
lader, Caruthers, Caskie, CUnyman, Howell Cobb, 
W. R. W. Cobb, Craiye, Davidson, Denver, Dow- 
dell, Edmunddon, Elliott, English, Faulkner, 
Florence, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Goode, Green- 
vood, Augustus Hall, Sampson W. Harris, 
Thomas L. Harris, Herbert, Hickman, Houston, 
Jewett, Geo. W. Jones, Keitt, Kelly, Kidwell, 
Letcher, Lumpkin, S. S. Marsliall, Maxwell, Mc- 
Mullin, McQueen, Smith Miller, Millson, Mor- 
decai, Oliver, Orr, Peck, Phelps,- Powell, Quitman, 
RujHn, Rust, Sandidye, Savaye, Samuel A. Smith, 
Wm. Smith, Stephens, Stewart, Tatbott, Vail, 
Warner, Watkins, Winslow, Daniel B. Wriyht, 
and John V. Wnyht." — Cony. Globe, vol. '62, 
part 1, page 228. 

Extract of tlie speech of Hon. James M. 
Mason, of Virginia, in the Senate of the 
United States, May 25, 1854 :— 

"Then, Mr. President, where do we stand? 
Here is a bill repealing and forever annulling a 
measure always odious to the South, and offen- 
sive to its honor, voluntarily brought forward 
from a quaiter where the majority resides ; and 
is the South to reject it because it contains, also, 
an incidental policy ou a different principle, 
•which we do not approve ? For one, sir, with a 
clear, unhesitating judgment, I answer, no.' 

•' Mr. President, I am not going to discuss 
this question of squatter sovereignty, on whicli 
my honorable friend from Michigan (Mr. Cass) 
appears to be so very sensitive. I do nut recog- 
nize the inhabitants of a Territory as a political 
community at nil. The very act of Congress 
which pr<jvides a government for the Territory 
is a negation of the right of the inhabitants to 
do it for themselves. Tliey arc mere occupants 
of the pulilic domain, nothing else. And it has 
been oidy because Congress deemed it expedient 
to give tliem a riglit of legislation, reserving to 
itself a power of revision, that the Territories 
have any political existence whatever. But v.hen 



Congress delegate the power to them, it is a 
mere delegation, and how Congress measures it 
out is a matter of expediency, not of principle. 
And from the experience which the South- 
ern States have had of the tendencies of 
Congress heretofore ou the subject of slavery, 
I do not know that we may nut quite as safely 
trust the people, come from where they may, 
as the Congress of the United States, with that 
institution. 

"I say, then, Mr. President, to sum up, this 
bill is objectionable in some of its features, it ia 
true. It is objectionable in that feature of it, for 
one, which does not deny the people the right to 
legislate on the subject of slavery. It is also 
objectionable in that clause of it which provides 
that foreigners — those not naturalized — shall 
participate in the political power of the Terri- 
tory. These, however, are questions of expedi- 
ency alone. There is no principle, far less any 
constitutional law, involved in them ; and if we 
can get the other and higher principle established 
on your statute-book, that henceforth power is 
denied to the Congress of the United States to 
legislate for the exclusion of slavery, by yielding 
the question of expediency, I do not think w^ 
shall be rebuked fur a bad bargain." — See vol. 
29 App. Cony. Globe, page 774. 

And again, on the 11th December, 1856, 
Mr. Mason said : — 

"I wish to make an explanation in which I 
have more interest than anybody else, in refer- 
ence to some remarks on this very topic which 
were interpolated into the debate at the time 
when the Senator from Maine (Mr. Fessenden) 
occupied the floor, and which seem to have been, 
the subject of misrepresentation. These remark^ 
were in reference to the much disputed questiou 
of squatter sovereignty. It has been supposed, 
not only in the Senate, but elsewhere, that I 
mean to admit a power in territorial legislation, 
to prohibit slavery in a Territory-. The remarks 
which I made may have betn, for all that 1 know, 
correctly reported in the Globe. I did not revise 
them. Here they are : — 

"'The territorial government was so organ- 
ized there as to admit citizens of all the States, 
whether free or slave, to take their property 
into the Territories; and when they organized 
themselves, or were organized under the law, 
into a legislative body, then to determine for 
themselves whether this institution should exist 
amongst them or not. The specific difference is, 
that under the Kansas law, citizens from the 
slaveholdiiig States might go into the Territory 
with their property ; citizens from the free States 
might go lliere, holding no such property, and 
when they got there aiid met in coinmon council 
as a legislative body, they should determine 
whether the institution should prevail ; whereas, 
the party which the honorable Senator is now 
representing here declares that in the organic 
law creating the government in the Territory 
there shall be a prohibition in limine that na 
slaves .'^hall go there.' 

" These remarks had reference to the subject- 
matter of a jirevious debate, and to positions I 
then nmintained; but occupying the floor by the 



13 



ttourtesy of the Senator entitled to it, I was ne- 
eessarily brief, and may have left my meaning 
obscure. 

"The previous debate had reference to the 
issues raised by the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and 
what I intended to say, and in a more elaborate 
form, would have said, was this, that those with 
whom I act have uniformly denied any power 
whatever in Congress to legislate on the subject 
of slavery in the Territories. The Kansas bill 
was intended to delegate to the occupants of the 
Territories whatever power Congress possessed 
over all subjects of rightful legislation ; but of 
course it could delegate no more ; and when we 
denied that Congress possessed any power to 
legislate on the subject of slavery, we of course 
denied that the Territorial Legislature could 
have it, because Congress could not delegate 
what it does not possess. I did not amplify to 
show what the Kansas bill shows on its face, 
that, in order to make the meaning more specific, 
the power to legislate on any subject was, by the 
terms of the bill, referred to the Constitution ; 
and express power was given, by an appeal to 
(he Supreme Court, to determine whether the 
Legislature could, or could not, rightfully legis- 
late on the subject of slavery. I could not oc- 
cupy the time which belonged to the Senator 
from Wiiine, to elaborate the idea; but I referred 
to the Kansas bill to determine what power was 
conceded, and of course, when we determined as 
our judgment that the Constitution gave to Con- 
gress no power to legislate on the subject of 
slavery, it followed that the bill could not dele- 
gate such power to a Territorial Legislature ; 
but as, on the other side, it was claimed that 
Congrej^s did possess the power, the bill imme- 
diately referred the question to the Constitution 
and the Judiciary, where w6 had been always 
■willing to send it. I desired to say this only, 
that I might not be, as I have been, misinter- 
preted. I am indebted to the courtesy of the 
Senator from New Hampshire in yielding me the 
floor for this purpose." — See Congressional Globe, 
8d Sess. 38d Cong., page 92. 

Extract of a sjjeech of Hon. James A. 
Bayakd, of Delaware, in the Senate of the 
United States, May 25, 1854 :— 

"The honorable Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Benjamin) stated three principles as embodied 
in the bill. In the first place it repeals an ideal 
arbitrary line which tended to create and foster 
Bectional differences in the country. I admit 
that it does that. But is that a principle, or is 
it merely a repeal of an act of Congress which 
may be again enacted, and which, whether re- 
pealed or permitted to remain, will have no prac- 
tical effect on the future political condition of 
the country to which it applies, whether as States 
or Territoiies? The second, that is the great 
principle of the bill, is tlie renunciation by Con- 
gress of all authority to legislate in regard to 
the institution of slavery, either for its establish- 
ment or its prohibition, beyond the two articles 
contained in the Constitution, which delegate 
two e.\p)'ess powers in relation to slavery, one 
to prohibit the slave-trade, and the second to 
provide for the reclamation of fugitive slaves 



who may escape into other States where slavery 

is not recognized by law. 

"I agree with the honorable Senator from 
Louisiana as to the importance of this principle; 
it seems to include within it the necessity for the 
repeal of the Missouri Compromise line. The 
honorable Senator from Virginia (Mr. Mason) 
assumes substantially the same position, placing 
the importance of the bill on the single ground 
that it establishes the principle of non-interven- 
tion by Congress with the institution of slavery 
in the Territories, as well as the States of this 
Union. Mr. President, I consider that an im- 
portant principle ; and if I supposed the effect 
of this bill would be to remove from the halls of 
Congress all agitation in regard to the question 
of slavery hereafter; if I supposed that it would 
bury forever hereafter this whole question of 
abolition, I would sacrifice almost any of the 
other opinions which I entertain in order to vote 
for the bill." — See App. Cong. Globe, vol. 29, p. 
775. 

Extract of a speech of the Hon. John 
Pettit, of Indiana, (lately appointed Chief 
Justice of Kansas,) in the Senate of the 
United States, February 20, 1854:— 

"There is one provision in this bill, however* 
which, in order that the bill may harmonize with 
provisions already adopted upon that subject, it 
would seem to me ought to be stricken out. It 
will be recollected that the people are expressly 
authorized to legislate upon all subjects what- 
soever, slavery included. They may either esta- 
blish or abolish it at their pleasure and at their 
will if the Constitution of the United States allows 
it. Such is my understanding of it, and such is 
my desire that it should be. But, to make the 
question plainer and clearer, and to rid it of all 
difficulties, I will suggest, if I do not move, the 
striking out of the following provision in the 
sixth section : — 

" 'That all laws passed by the Assembly, and 
approved by the Governor, shall be submitted to 
the Congress of the United States, and, if disap- 
proved, shall be null and of none effect.' 

"My desire is to authorize the people of the 
Territory to legislate upon all legitimate subjects 
of legislation without let or hindrance by this 
government." — See App. Cong. Globe, 1st ses- 
sion 33d Congress, vol. 29, p. 212. 

[The provision referred to by Mr. Pettit in 
reference to the laws being disapproved by Con- 
gress was subsequently stricken out.] 

Extract of a speech of the Hon, A. P. 
BuTLEit, of South Carolina, delivered in the 
United States Senate, March 2, 1854 : — ■ 

"Now, I believe that under the provisions of 
this bill, and of the Utah and New Mexico bills, 
there will be a perfect carle blanche given to the 
Territorial Legislature to legislate as they may 
think proper. I am willing, as I said bclore, to 
trust the discretion and honesty and good faith 
of the people on whom we devolve this power; 
but I can never consent that the3'' can take it of 
themselves, or that it belongs to them without 
delegating it; for I think they are our deputies, 
— limited, controllable deputies, not squatter 



14 



sovereigns. I am willing to say that the people 
of the Territories of Nebraska aud Kansas nliall 
be deputed by Congress to pass such laws as may 
be within their constitutional competency to pass, 
and nothing more. Is not that an honorable, fair, 
liberal trust to an intelligent people ? 1 am will- 
ing to trust them. I have been willing to trust 
them in Utah and New Mexico, where the Mexi- 
can law prevailed, and I am willing to trust them 
in Nebraska and Kansas, where the French law, 
according to the idea of the gentleman, may pos- 
sibly be revived." — See App. Cong. Globe, 1st 
session 88d Congress, vol. 29, p. 292. 

Extract of a speech of the Hon. R. M. T. 
IIuxTER, of Virginia, delivered in the United 
State.s Senate, Feln-nary 24, 1854: — 

"The bill provides that the Legislatures of 
these Territories shall have power to legislate 
over all rightful subjects of legislation consist- 
ently with the Cou.stitution. And if they should 
assume powers which arc thought to be incon- 
sistent with the Constitution, the courts will 
decide that question wherever it may be raised. 
There is a difference of opinion among the friends 
of this measure as to the extent of the limits 
which the Constitution imposes upon the Terri- 
torial Legislatures. This bill proposes to leave 
these differences to the decision of the courts. 
To that tribunal I am willing to leave this de- 
cision, as it was once before proposed to be left 
by the celebrated compromise of the Senator 
from Delaware, (Mr. Clayton) — a measure which, 
according to my understanding, was the best com- 
promise which was offered upon this subject of 
slavery. I say, then, that I am v.llling to leave 
this point, upon which the friei; is of the bill are 
at difference, to the decision of the courts." — 
Sfic App. Cong. Globe, 1st session 33d Congress, 
■vol. 29, p. 224. 

Extract of a speech of the Hon. Robert 
Toombs, of Georgia, in the Senate of the 
Tinited States, February 2<S, 1856 : — 

"We who passed this Kansas bill, both at the 
North and the South, intend to maintain its prin- 
ciples ; we do not intend to be driven from them 
by clamor, nor by assaults, nor by falsehoods, 
nor by any other invention of its faithless and 
impotent assailants. These principles we ex- 
pound for ourselves. We intend that the actual 
bona fide settlers of Kansas shall be protected in 
the full exercise of all the rights of freemen; 
that, unawed j^nd uncontrolled, they shall freely 
and of their own will legislate for themselves to 
every extent allowed by the Constitution while 
they have a Territorial government, and when 
they shall be in a condition to come into the 
Union, and may desire it, that they shall come 
into the Union, with whatever republican consti- 
tution they may prefer and adopt for themselves; 
that in the exercise of these rights they shall be 
protected against insurrectirin from within and 
jnvnsi(m from witiiout. The rights are accorded 
to them witliout any reference to the result, and 
will be maintained, in my opinion, by the Soutli 
and the North. I stood upon this ground in the 
passage of the bill. I shall maintain it with 
fidelity and honor to the last extremity." * * * 



"Against all these conflicting efforts and opi- 
nions, the friends of the Constitution, justice, 
and equality have hitherto held, and will con- 
tinue to hold, the scales of justice even and 
unshaken. We still tell all the owners of this 
public domain to enter and enjoy it, both in the 
North and the South, with property of every sort, 
exercise the full powers of American freemen; 
legislate for yourselves to any and every extent, 
and upon any and every subject allowed by our 
Ci)mmon Constitution. The Federal Government 
will protect you against all who attempt to disturb 
you in the exercise of these invaluable rights; 
and when you have become powerful and strong 
enough to bear the burdens, and desire it, wa 
will admit you into the family of sovereigns 
without reference to your opinions and your 
action upon African slavery. Decide that ques- 
tion for yourselves, and wc will sustain your 
decision, because it is your right to make it. 
This is the policy of the Kansas bill ; it wrongs 
no man — no section of our common country. — 
See Appendix Cong. Globe, 1st Session 34th Con- 
gress, vol. 33, p. 116. 

In alluding to tlie same subject in the Se- 
nate, on the 9th of July, 185G, Mr. Toombs 
again said : — 

"I thought it was the duty of the Govern- 
ment to protect slave property in the Territories 
until they should come into the Union as States, 
and then let them do as they pleased. There 
was not a large party to sustain this doctrine ; 
but I believed it was right then, and believe so 
now. But a large portion of the South and a 
great number of the North, true National men, 
said, ' Let us leave the people of the Territo- 
ries to pass on this and all other domestic rela- 
tions as far as the Constitution will allow.' I 
agreed to it. Congress adopted it and incorpo- 
rated it into the bills of 1850. The , Senator 
from Maine says it is not there. I offer him this 
evidence : three-fourths of the Senate, and those 
who supported those measures, say it is there. 
He has opposed both, but he undertakes to con- 
strue our meaning for us. I do not consider him 
a good expounder of others' creeds." — See Ap- 
pendix Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 34th Cong., vol. 33, 
p. 870. 

Extracts of the speech of Hon. S. A. Smith, 
of Tennessee, delivered in tlie House of Re- 
l^resentatives, June 25, 1856 : — 

"The controlling minds in that hour (185(1) 
which tried the strength of the band which binds 
us, (Cass, Clay, and Webster,) found no solution 
of the problem which they were compelled to 
solve, but in the great fundamental principle 
which relieved our fathers from like difficulties 
in the formation and adoption of the Constitu- 
tion itself. 

"For twenty years this question had agitated 
Congress and the country without a single bene- 
ficial result. They resolved that it should bo 
transfen-ed from these halls, that all unconstitu- 
tional restrictions should be removed, and that 
the people should iletermiiie for themselves the 
character of their local ami domestic institutions 
under which they were to live, with precisely the 



15 



same rights, but no greater than those vrhich 
were enjoyed by the old thirteen States. 

"Excitement was intense and clamor loud, but 
the sober judgment of the people ratified the 
constitutional action of their representatives. 

" In 185-1 the same question was presented 
when the necessity arose for the organization of 
the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and the 
identical principle was applied for its solution. 
T, for one, as a Southern man, did not accept it 
with reference to any result which it might pro- 
bably produce. I accepted it because it was 
constitutional, just, and safe, and because I be- 
lieved it to be the only principle which could 
secure tlie legitimate rights of all sections of the 
Union. It had not merely the convictions of 
my own judgment to sustain it, but if had the 
sanction of the patriotism and wisdom of the 
Revolutionary fathers. If this great principle 
of popular sovereignty be justly carried out and 
sacredly maintained, it will give in time to come 
what we have enjoyed in the past — union, 
strength, prosperity, and happiness. If it be 
struck down by passion, fanaticism, or sectional 
prejudice, in either section of tlie Confederacy, 
I will not permit myself to contemplate the woes 
that await us." * * * * 

" I say here, as a Southern man, and I believe 
tlie sentiment will be sanctioned by nearly every 
Southern man on this floor, that if a bill were 
introduced in Congress to establish slavery in 
Kansas or any other Terrifoi-y of the United 
States, I should unhesitatingly vote against it. 
And this I would do notwithstanding I honestly 
believe African slavery to be a moi-al, a social, 
and a political blessing, applicable alike to the 
master and to the slave. Why, then, cannot the 
North meet us upon this common ground, and 
declare that they would not prohibit slavery by 
congressional enactment in any of the Territo- 
ries of the United States? This would leave the 
people to be aifected by the institution to deter- 
mine the question for themselves in their own 
way, 'subject only to the Constitution of the 
United States.'" — Sec Cong. Globe, 1st Session 
34th Congress, part 2, page 1171. 

E.xtract of a speech of Hon. A. C. Dodge, 
of Iowa, in the United States Senate, Febru- 
ary 25, 1854 :— 

" With this digression upon points wholly un- 
looked for in the discussion, and being a sincere 
believer in the doctrine of 'squatter sovereignty' 
in its fullest, broadest, deepest sense, I propose 
n&w, in my humble way, to offer some argu- 
ments in support of the bill for the organization 
of Nebraska and Kansas — it being in its present 
shape, or as its friends propose to make it, the 
noblest tribute which has ever yet been offered 
by tlie Congress of the United States to the 
sovereignty of the people." * * * * 

"The addresses, resolutions, and petitions of 
the fathers of the Revolution, both in matter 
and spirit, touching the extent of the power of 
(he Parliament of England to legislate for the 
colonies, are thoroughly imbued with the princi- 
ples for which the advocates of non-intervention 
are to-day contending. The Continental Con- 
gress of 177-1 declared that — 



" 'The English colonists are entitled to a free 
and exclusive power of legislation in their seve- 
ral provincial Legislatures, where their rights 
of representation can alone be preserved in all 
cases of taxation and internal polity.' 

" The same principle seems to have governed 
the wise and patriotic men who framed our Con- 
stitution after the independence of the Republic 
was secured." * 

* -H- •» * * ^ * 

"And, sir, honesty, and consistency with our 
course in 1850, demand that those of us who 
supported the compromise measures should 
zealously support this bill, because it is a return 
to the sound principle of leaving to the people 
of the Territories the right of determining for 
themselves their domestic institutions." — Ap- 
pendix Cong. Olobe, 1st Sess. 33d Cong., vol. 29, 
pages 876, 877, 879. 

Extract of a speech of the Hon. Thomas 
F. Bowie, of Maryland, in the House of Re- 
presentatives, January 29, 1856 : — 

" If this be so — and I scarcely think it can 
admit of a doubt — it follows clearly that the 
rules and regulations which Congress is empow- 
ered to make respecting the territory or other 
property belonging to the United States, relate 
exclusively themselves to such rules and regula- 
tions only as may be needful for Congress to 
make in reference to the disposition, preserva- 
tion, and management of such territory as the 
common property of all the States, and not to a 
class of powers entirely political in their nature, 
which have for their end only the establishment 
of forms of government for the protection and 
enjoyment of civil and religious freedom. This 
latter class of powers, sir, it seems to me, will 
more appropriately be found among those which 
were reserved by the people, and whicli the fra- 
mers of the Constitution never intended should 
be surrendered to the Federal Government by 
any portion of the people of this country, whe- 
ther living in the States or after-acquired Terri- 
tories. The great struggle between the British 
crown, under the administration of Lord North, 
and the United Colonies, as to the right of the 
colonies to govern themselves in all cases what- 
ever, had been finally closed by the establishment 
of that great fundamental political truth, that man 
is capable of self-government; and had the 
framers of our Constitution inserted in that in- 
strument any provision inconsistent with that 
great truth, to be afterwards applied or enforced 
against the people of any of the States or after- 
acquired territories of the Union, they would, 
in my judgment, sir, have falsified every princi- 
ple which induced the colonies to take up arms 
in defence of their own riglits to separate and 
independent sovereignty. But, sir, I have not 
time to pursue these reflections further in the 
present condition of the House. I will take the 
opportunity of doing so at some other time." — 
Sre Appendix Cong. Globe, 1st Session 31th 
Congress, vol. 33, p. 56. 

Extract of a speech of the Hon. George 
W. Jones, of Tennessee, delivered in tlio 
House of Eepresentatives, December 28, 
1855:— 



16 



" Then, sir, yon may call it hy what name 
you please — non-intervention, squatter sove- 
reignty, or popular sovereignty. It is, sir, the 
power of the jieople to govern themselves, and 
they, and they alone, .should exercise it, in my 
opinion, as well while in a territorial condition 
as in the position of a State. I would ask those 
who deny this doctrine, whether they are of my 
party or of any other party — whether they are 
from the Nortli or from the Sovth — to reconcile 
another provision of that act with the doctrine 
that neither this Government nor the people of 
the Teniioi'y have any power over this isolated 
question while in a territorial condition. Look 
to tlie Kansas and Nebraska act and you will 
there find prescribed the qualifications of voters. 
How long to continue, sir? Until the first election 
only. And the qualifications of voters and of 
holding oilice at all .'subsequent elections, shall 
be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly. 
Which is the higher prerogative of sovereignty, 
to prescribe the rights of property or to pre- 
scribe the qualification of voters? I hold that 
the highest prerogative of sovereignty is to pre- 
scribe the qualifications of voters — to draw the 
line between the citizen, the coequal constituent 
of sovereignty in a country, and the subject, 
vassal, or serf. 

"1 believe that the great principle — the right 
of the people in the Tei-ritories, as well as in 
the States, to form and regulate their own 
domestic institutions in their own way — is 
clearly and unequivocally embodied in the Kan- 
sas-Nebraska act; and if it is not, it should 
have been. Believing that it was the living, 
vital principle of the act, I voted for it. These 
are my views, honestly entertained, and will be 
defended." — Cong. Globe, 1st Session 34th Con- 
gress, part 1, p. 98. 

Extract of a speech of the Hon. Jon\ 
M. Elliott, of Kentucky, delivered in 
the House of Representatives, August 4, 
1856 :— 

"In 1854, the Democratic party, in order to 
carry ovit the spirit cif the compromise of 1850, 
declared that the line in prohibition of slavery 
north of 3(3 degrees 30 minutes, known as the 
Missouri compromise line, was inoperative and 
void; and in forming territorial governments 
for Kansas and Nebraska, they inserted a pro- 
vision leaving the question of slavery, as well 
as all other domestic questions, to be settled by 
the people of said Territories, just as had been 
done in the formation of the Territories of Utah 
and New Mexico,/ b3- the compromise measures 
of 1850." — See Appendix Cojig. Globe, 1st Ses- 
sion 34th Congress, vol. 33. 

Extract of a speech of Hon. Jonx S. C.xskie, 
of Virginia, delivered in the House of liepre- 
sentatives, May 19, 1854: — 

"Now comes the question, is there any suffi- 
cient reason in the difrorcnce between myself and 
Pome of the friends of the Nebraska-Kansas l)ill 
in regard to the opinions I have just expressed, 
for divi.'-ion between ns in reference to it, a hesi- 
tation on their part or mine in its support? I 



answer at once, there is none. The bill gives the 
inhabitants of Kansas and Nebraska all the rights 
which they possess under the Constitution, and 
none other, and leaves the decision of what those 
rights are to the courts. That is the agreement 
as to Territorial power, plain as a pike-staflf on 
the face of the bill, and fair and honorable as it 
is plain. What saj's the bill? 

'"It being the true intent and meaning of 
this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory 
or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave 
the peoj)le thereof jierfectly free to form and 
regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way, subject only to the Constitution of the 
United States.' 

" I have.heard objections to the strength of the 
word ' form' in this connection. But it will be 
observed that the clause -in which it is used 
embraces the power of the people of Nebraska 
and Kansas over the institution of slavery not 
only while they are in the Territorial germ, but 
when they reach the state of development — 
a period at which their jurisdiction becomes ex- 
clusive and complete. The Constitution is made 
the measure of their power in both stages of their 
advancement. The language used in its defini- 
tion is brief, plain, and apt, while the rule by 
which it is gauged is uncriing. 

" In other sections (sections six and twenty- 
four) the bill limits the legislative power of these 
Territories to 'all rightful subjects of legislation 
consistent with the Constitution of the United 
States and the provisions of this act.' 

"Now, is it not clear that Territorial sove- 
reignty can be in the bill only if it is in the Con- 
stitution? if not in the Constitution, it is not in 
the bill. We make the jmliciary the umpires of 
our difference on this point. This is a grijund, 
and the only ground, on which just men united 
against the Missouri restriction, but divided as 
to an incidental question connected with it, can 
meet and stand togfther. If territorial sove- 
reignty be in the Constitution, I iKqio 1 am 
patriot enough to yield my opposition to it. If 
it be not, I am sure my friends who ditlVr from 
me about it are patriots enough to yield their 
advocacy of it. And so we go hand in hand to 
break down that disunion, 'middle wall of parti- 
tion' which now separates sections, and to re- 
establish that broad brotherhood under which 
our independence was achieved, and on which 
our government is based. Can I object to the 
arbitrament to which the bill submits tlie ques- 
tion of Territorial authority to exclude slavery? 
Never while I retain the confidence I now have 
in the position I now hold; never until I can 
believe that the illustrious Caroliinan — my poli- 
tical morning star— was no herald of the day; 
and that the whole host of Southern men were 
dolts, when in 1848 they proposed, upon far less 
inducements, to submit equally grave issues to 
the same tribunal." — Sec Apj)cudix Cong. Globe., 
vol. 29, p. 1144. 

Extract of a speech of the Hon. A. G. 
Brown, of Mississippi, delivered in tli« 
United States Senate, July 2, 185G : — 

"I le'-'.rn now for the first time that the people 



¥ 



17 



of a Terrifory have not the compefence to regu- 
late their own tloinestic and police mattei'S in 
their own way, but that it belongs to Congress; 
that it is only in the higher branches that they 
have the right to regulate their own affairs in 
their own way. Am I to understand by this that 
the people of a Territory h;ivc' the right, if they 
clioose, to exclude or abolish slavery; and that 
if I believe, as a Southern man, such an abolition 
to be unconstitutional, I must go to the courts 
for the maintenance of my rights ; and yet, if 
other measures of less importance, mere matters 
of police regulation, are adopted, they may come 
to Congress and beseech legislation to put it all 
right? If the mr.jor proposition includes the 
minor, as I suppose it does, ^and the people of the 
Territory have the right to legislate on these 
great questions for themselves, independent of 
the action of Congress, I apprehend they have 
an equal right to legislate for themselves on the 
smaller questions. I should like my esteemed 
friend from Connecticut to tell me where the line 
is ; to what particular question it is applicable. 

" Under the general phraseology of the Kansas 
bill, he admits the people of the Teri-itory to have 
the exclusive right to legislate. I supposed, 
when we passed the bill, that we intended by it 
to give them a right to legislate on all subjects 
touching their domestic policy ; and that if any- 
body was dissatisfied he should go to the courts, 
and not come to Congress foflr his remedy. This 
has been my understanding, and I have endea- 
vored to live up to it. My friend from Michigan 
and myself differ very widely as to what are the 
powers of a Territorial Legislature ; he believing 
that they can exercise sovereign rights, and I be- 
lieving no such thing ; he contending that they have 
a right to exclude slavery, and I not admitting the 
proposition, but both of us concurring in the 
opinion that it is a question to be decided by the 
courts, and not by Congress. If we are agreed 
on that, let us agree on this other proposition. 
If I had been the party aggrieved by the laws of 
Kansas, I knew the place to which I was pointed 
to seek my remedy. If others are aggrieved, let 
them go to the same place." — Appendiz to Cong. 
Globe, 3-4th Congress, 1st sess., p. 801. 

Extracts of the speech of the Hon. Thojias 
L. Clingmax, at present Senator of the 
United States from North Carolina, in the 
House of Representatives, April 4, 1854 : — 

" This, in my judgment, is the best species of 
non-intervention. "We say that the people of the 
Territory may legislate as the Constitution of 
the United States permits them to do, without 
the intervention of Congressional law, French 
law, Spaui-^h law, Mexican law, or Indian law. 
It makes the Tcrritoi-y like a sheet of blank 
paper, on which our citizens may write Ameri- 
can constitutional law." 

****** 

"It has b«ea well said that there is a great 
resemblance between this issue and that involved 
in the stiaiggle between the colonies and Great 
Britain at the Declaration of Independence. 
There is,^however, one great striking difference 
between the two cases. The colonies in 1776 



denied the right of Great Britain to tax them to 
the smallest extent; but the people of Kansas 
and Nebraska say to Congress, You may impose 
any nmouiit of taxation upon u>^, and we will 
cheerfully pay it ; you may make your own dis- 
position of the public lands, lay off your military 
roads and post roads, and establish your forts 
and arsenals; you may subject us to the action 
of every law of Congress that the citizens of any 
State in this Union are subject to; but when yon 
have done all that, when you have exhausted all 
your powers under the Constitution of the United 
States, then we ask the poor privilege of managing 
our local affairs according to our own wishes. 
And why should they not have it? Why should 
Massachusetts or North Carolina control the 
people of those Territories ? Sir, the .question 
stands upon the great republican right of every 
community to legislate for itself." — Appendix 
Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 33d Cong., vol. 28, p. 488. 

Extract of the speech of Hon. Z. Kidwell, 
of Virginia, in the House of Representatives, 
Avigust 11, 1856 : — 

"The people of Kansas and Nebraska are 
allowed, by the organic act, to pass such laws as 
they please, subject only to the Constitution of 
the United States. If a majority of the people 
of either of the Territories named are opposed 
to establishing slavery, and they pass an act pro- 
hibiting the introduction of additional slaves, 
many Southern statesmen believe such an act 
would be unconstitutional, while many Northern 
statesmen think it would not be. Which is right 
and which is wrong, the Supreme Court, under 
the Kansas-Nebraslta act, would decide. This 
law does not take sides with either North or 
South, but leaves the question open for the de- 
cision of the Court, to which it rightfully belongs." 
— Appe7idix Cong. Globe, 1st Session 34th Con- 
gress, volume 33, page 1267. 

Extract of a speech of the Hon. CnARLfa 
J. Favlkner, of Virginia, delivered in the 
House of Representatives, April 10, 1854 : — 

"But, sir, it may be that slavery will seek its 
expansion in Kansas and Nebraska ; and if so, 
who, here, has the right to complain ? It will 
be their own act — the act of the people of these 
Territories, and they purely are competent to 
determine for themselves, whether their social 
and political condition will be most advanced by 
its toleration or exclusion. They will not be 
without the most ample experience to guide them 
to a proper conclusion ; and it is rank arrogance 
and folly for this Government to seek to control 
them upon a point upon which their own inte- 
rests and instincts can far more safelj' instruct 
them, than they can be by the gratuitous advice 
of those who will never partake of the good or 
evil of their institutions. 

" Sir, much obloquy has been cast upon the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois, for his 
agency in bringing forward this great measure. 
For one, I take this occasion to say that I honor 
him for it; and when the passion and the excite* 
ment of the hour have passed away, the country 
will do justice to the purity of his motives and 
2 



18 



to the wisdom and sngncity of his act. Dls- 
tinpiii-^bed ns lie has been throughout his wliole 
public career for enhirsed, liberal, and coniprc- 
hensive views, this act places liim upon the hi,i!;h- 
ost pedestal of national statesmanship. 'I'lie 
principles of this bill belong neither to the Nortli 
nor to the South, but to tlie whole country. 
They are pi-oniulgated with no views to advance 
the interests of any one section, but to promote 
tlie peace and tranquillity of all. They embody 
the vi;al pr'nciple of the Constitution ; they re- 
flect the recorded wisdom of the sages of the 
Uevoliitiori. 'fliey are the principles of justice, 
of equality, of fri'C government, of popular sove- 
reignty, of perpetual union, every departure 
from wiiich has tilled the country with commo- 
tion, and left behind it the scars of fraternal 
strife." — Appendix Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. Sod 
Cong., vol. 23, p. 488. 

Extract of a speech of the Hon. John H. 
Lumpkin, of Georgia, delivered in the House 
of Eepresentatives, August 2, 1856 : — 

"It became necessary, in 185-1, to provide a 
government for the Territoiies west of Missouri ; 
and the Democratic party of the Senate and 
House of riepresentativcs, fiiithful to their 
pledges and to the Constitution of the United 
Statt s, did, in framing governments for Kansas 
and Nebraska, incorporate the same principles, 
even to the very letter, of the language employed 
in the bill organizing territorial goveinments fur 
Utah and New Mexico, and thus manifested their 
willingness to perpetuate the principles of non- 
interventiiin by any Congressional legislation on 
the purely domestic institutiot^of negro slavery." 
— 'See Apjiend'x Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 34tu Cong., 
voL 33, p. llliS. 

Extract of a speech of the Hon. Albert 
G. Tai-bott, of Kentucky, delivered in the 
House of Kepicsentatives, July 28, 185G: — 

"Well, sir, the slavery agitation ceased, the 
country was quieted, the measures of 1850 were 
approved by everybody and by every section ; 
the more the principle of non-intervention was 
investigated, the more popu'ar and acceptable 
it seemed to be. Every one who looked at it 
and investigated it saw at once that it was only 
carrying out the great prhiciide upon which our 
government is based — man's right and capability 
of self-government. They saw at once that it 
was only extending to the Territories precisely 
the same privileges which are now, and have 
been since the Government was first organized, 
enjoyed by every State in the Union. And in 
1852 the Whig p^irly and the Democratic party 
both met in national convention, and endorsed 
the principles of non-intervention, which had 
been so adopted in lieu of the Missouri restric- 
tion, in spirit and in substance." 

****** 

" Now, sir, I say that in view of all these facts. 
Congress could not have done otherwise than 
pa«s the Kansas-Nebraska bill, just as it is. It 
is just, constitutional, and right ; it neither leg- 
islates slavery into nor excludes it from the Ter- 



ritories, but leaves the people thereof perfectij 
free to organize their own governments, and 
regulate their own domestic institutions for 
themselves. If, Mr. Chairman, the people aro 
capalde of self-government, wlio, in our country, 
will say they ought not to do it ? If they have 
the right, who will say they shnll not do it ? If, 
then, they have both the capjacity and the right, 
in reason's name, in the Uiime of justice and our 
gloiious Constitution, let them do it." — See Ap- 
pendix Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 34th Cong., vo.'.. 33, 
p. 1240. 

Extract of a speech of the Hon. Moses 
NoRRis, Jr., of New Hampshire, in the 
Senate of tlie United States, March 3, 
1854 :— 

"Now, sir, I understand the spirit and ti-ue 
intent of this clause of the bill to be, tliat the 
legislation of 1850, organizing the Territories of 
Utah and New jMexico, wa« grcjunded on tlie prin- 
ciple of the non-intervention of Congress with 
the institution of slavery or any other domestic 
institution in the Territnriosof the United States, 
and the Stales to be formed out of them, leaving 
the people free to form their own institutions for 
themselves; and that the principle of legislation 
thus agreed upon and established, as to Utah 
and New Mexico, ought to be final, not only as 
to these Territories, but as to all Territories 
organized after that time." * * * 

" Now, I shall endeavor to maintain that the 
doctrine of non-interference on the part of the 
Federal Government with the institutions of the 
organized Toi-rifories was then established, leav- 
ing to the people of the Territories the rights of 
a free and popular government, with full power 
under the Constitution to form their own do- 
mestic institutions as they maj' deem best suited 
to their condition. I shall endeavor to esta- 
blish that. I shall endeavor to estiiblish another 
fact : that this measure of non-intervention was 
carried by the almost united vote of the North 
against the great mass of Southern Senators in 
this chamber, as establishing a principle on 
which the North could stand, and not as a mero 
expedient, temporary and limited in its opera- 
tion, but as enduring. I will, by-and-by, appeal 
to the record in vindication of what 1 now 
say." — Appendix Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 33d 
Cong., vol. 29, p. 305'. 

Extract of a speech of Hon. John B. 
Weller, of California, in tiie United States 
Senate, February 13, 1854 : — 

" But, sir, if this be a question betAveen 
slavery and freedom, then the friends of this 
measui-e hold the freedom side of tlie question. 
We projiose that the people, the original source 
of all jiower, those who spoke this government 
into existence, and whose agents we are, shall 
be allowed to decide for themselves what local 
institutions shall exist among them. On the 
other hand, the opponents of the measure advo- 
cate slavery. Tliey contend that the Ameri- 
can people shall not exercise this right ; that 
their minds shall be enslaved; tliat their liands 
nhall be tied tip, and they prevented from a free 



19 



decision -whetlier slavery shall exist there or 
not. We occupy "le broad ground of freedom. 
We Iiave an abiding confidence in the honest}' 
and in the intelligence of the people. AVe arc* 
not afraid to trust them witli the df-cision of 
this que.-tion. IIow stands it with you ? I had 
supposed that you were the agents and repre- 
sentatives of the people; but it seems that the 
servant has become wiser than the master. 
Vou, who are invested with political power, are 
claiming now thiit you are better judges of what 
sort of government the peojjle should have than 
the people themselves. Is this so ? Is there 
that vast amount of intelligence and of pati-iot- 
ism in the American Congress which m;ikes us 
far better judges of what the people should have 
than the peop'e themselves ? Our whole systein 
is based upon the principle that man is capable 
of self-government. The moment you violate 
this principle, that moment you transcend your 
authority and destroy the vital elements of the 
republic. 

" We propose that this, like all other ques- 
tions, shall be left to the free decision of the 
people." — Appendix Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 33d 
(Jong., vol. 29, page 200. 

Extract of the speech of the Hon. Wir. 
H. ExGLisrr, of Indiana, delivered in the 
I'^ouse of Eepresentatives, May 9, 1854: — 

"Mr. Cliairman, I do not choose, on this oc- 
casion, to express any opinion as to the power 
of Congress to Legislate for tlie Territories, be- 
cause the impropriety of exercising such power 
)s so clear, to my mind, as to make the consider- 
ation of the couslitutional question entirely un- 
necessary. 

" I am willing, as I said upon a previous occa- 
sion, to tru'^t the people with the power of regu- 
lating their domestic institutions in their own 
way, not only under State government, but 
through their regularly-con- tituted Territorial 
Legislature. I hold that if the people are of 
Bufiicient numbers and importance to merit a 
Territorial government at all, they are capable 
of governing tliemselves. A man who has exer- 
cised the attributes of a free citizen in Indiana, 
or any other State, loses none of his powers of 
self-government by emigrating to a Teriitory. 
Is he less A'irtuous, less intelligent, less imbued 
with the spirit of patriotism and love of country 
because he resides in a Territory and not in a 
State ? Is he less an object of government re- 
gard because he has gone info the wilderness to 
endure the hardships of frontier life in prepai'ing 
a way for that tide of population, civilization, 
and empire which still flows to the West? Sir, 
Eueh men can be trusted. I would refer the 
question of slavery, and all other questions, to 
them — to that best and safest of all tribunals — 
the people to be governed. They are the best 
judges of the soil, and climate, and wants of the 
country they inhabit, and they are the true 
judges of what will best suit their own condi- 
tion and promote their welfare and happiness. 

" And. sir, I am surprised, that in tliis repub- 
lic, in the year 1854, any party should be found 
to deny the privilege to such organized State 



and Territory of the Union of regulating their 
domestic institutions in their own way, subject 
to the Constitution, and, more particularly, that 
such anti-iepublican doctrines should be ad- 
vanced by anj' one claiming to be a member of 
the Democratic party." — Append. Cong. Globe, 
1st Sess. 33d Cong., vol. 29, page G08. 

Extract of a speech of Hon. Moses 
M.iCDOXALD, of Maine, delivered in the 
House of Representatives, April 10, 1854: — 

"Pass this bill, give to the people of the Ter- 
ritories the right to determine for themselves 
the question whether they will tolerate slavery 
or not, and the question becomes local. No 
longer will there be inducements, and most cer- 
tainly no propriety in discussing the question at 
the North or in non-slaveholding communities. 

"The bill commends itself especi-d'y to mj 
own mind, bccanse it contains tlie principle that 
the people of the Territories shall regulate their 
own domestic affairs. Tliis right was the great 
feature of the Territorial bills of 1850, and is 
' the lion in the path of agitation.' The doctrine 
that all just powers are derived from the consent 
of the governed, addresses itself to the dignity 
of man, and teaches him the lesson that his 
rights are not the grant of an earthly govern- 
ment, but 'the free gift of the King of kings.' 
Sir, the sovereignty of the people, their right to 
rule in political affairs, was first proclaimed in 
the cars of the Old AVorld by our own Declara- 
tion of Independence. The tenacity with which 
our forefathers clung to this doctrine is written 
in the blood and carnage, the suffering and self- 
denial, of the American Revolution. As the 
basis of permanent government, this principle 
was first recognized in the American Constitu- 
tion. ' AVe, the people, do ordain and establish 
government,' are words of power which caused 
the kings of the earth to fear and tremble like 
Belshazzar of old, when the finger of a man's 
hand wrote over against the candlestick upon 
the plaster of the wall these words of fearful 
import, 'mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.' Our 
great growth as a nation, and our great pros- 
perity as individuals, under the benign influence 
of the Constitution, are the legitimate fruit of 
the great truth that man is capable of self-gov- 
ernment. This principle, sir, runs through the 
v.hole structure of our governmental organiza- 
tion. It is the central sun of our system, around 
which revolve all other lights." 

****** 

" Sir, the whole head and front of the offend- 
ing of the Nebraska bill hath this extent — no 
more : that it allows the people of the Territory 
to regulate their own affairs." — See Appendix 
Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 33d Cong., vol. 29, p. 
514. 

Extract of a speech of Hon. Jonx R. 
TiioMPSTiv, of New Jersey, in the Senate of 
the United States, February 28, 1854 :— 

" The principle of this bill is the principle 
of self-government, a principle which alone 
prompted the Declaration of Independence* 



20 



Sir, it was the seminal principle of the Consti- 
tution and the govcrnnieul. It lies at the found- 
ation of all our political institutions. It is the 
inalienable birthii<^lit of every American free- 
man. The recognition of this principle has 
been universal in our country, with the single 
exception of the aiioinaly of dictating to the 
people of the Territories (in some instances) 
their organic laws, instead of leaving them, like 
the rest of the people, to the exercise of their 
own volition. At this moment the country re- 
sounds with clamor from a political party, whose 
policy it is to keep alive agitation, because it is 
proposed that Congress sliould algurc the exer- 
cise of irresponsible power, and leave the people 
of the Territories established by this bill to the 
enjoyment of their rights of self-government." — 
Append. Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. ood Cong., vol. 
2'J, p. 255. 

Extract of a speech of Hon. Eichard 
Brodhead, of Pennsylvania, in the United 
States Senate, February 28, 1854 : — 

♦' But, sir, is not the bill correct in principle, 
and will it not work as well in practice as any 
other which can be adopted ? Does it not give 
the people of the Territories the right to regu- 
late their own domestic affairs in any way they 
please, not in violation of the Constitution of the 
United States ? We are nut asked to give pro- 
tection to property in slaves, or say that the 
local Legislature shall not pass laws upon the 
subject of slavery. We do not say whether the 
slaveholder can or cannot hold a slave there bj' 
virtue of the Constitution ; that is left an open 
question to be decided by the Supreme Court of 
the United States. And who can object to that? 
Biit, sir, if we put a provision in the bill that up 
to the time of the formation of a State Constitu- 
tion the owners of slaves should lawfully hold 
them there, it would be of no service to them, 
because there would be no local police; so that 
the mere refusal of the Territorial Legislature 
to provide for the manner in which they shall 
be held and sold and treated, and penalties for 
harboring them, &c., would effectually exclude 
them." — Appendix Congressional Globe, 1st ses- 
sion 33d Cougi-ess, vol. 29, p. 249. 

Extracts of a speech of Hon. William 
BiGLER, of Pennsylvania, in the United 
States Senate, July 1, 185G: — 

•'In 1850, when the peace of the country 
seemed to be in imminent danger, the expe- 
rienced men of this body, such as Mr. Claj' and 
Mr. AVebster, and the venerable Senator in front 
of me, Mr. Cass, and others, conceived and pre- 
sented a new mode of adju:-tment. That was 
simid}' to take this question out of Congress and 
confide it to the people of the Territory — to 
submit it to their judgment and their will. For 
one, I thought the princi|>le an admirable one. 
It seemed to me that it ought to give entire satis- 
faction to the country, and that it would have 
a salutary influence upon our national relations 
— a principle so perfectly in unison with our 
whole republican sj'slem of government, a mere 
recognition and extension to tlie Territories of 
f^'at vital principle of self-government — a prin- 



ciple suited to all times, all occasions, and all 
territories, and as imperishable as our niouii- 
tuins — no temporary remedy, no arbitrary rule, 
no perishable expedient, but simply tliis: that as 
the people of a State can at all times settle this 
question of domestic policy for themsi-lves, Con- 
gress will enforce that the people of a Teriilory 
shall have the same opportunity — that that 
power which is to be complete and exclusive when 
the people become a State sliould operate during 
tlie territorial existence. Js'ot only because it 
was perfectly right in principle, but because 
I believed it would be wise in practice, 1 pre- 
ferred it to any which had previously been prac- 
tised in the Government, or any other idea pre- 
sented at the time antagonistic to it." — Appen- 
dix Congressional Globe, 1st session, 34th Con- 
gress, vol. 33, pages 729, 730. 

Again, on the 9th of July, 1856, in the 
Senate, wlien Kansas atliiirs were under dis- 
cussion, Mr. BiGLER said: — 

"I want to put myself right on another point. 
I mean the question of the measure of power 
which the territorial legislatuie can exercise 
over the subject of slavery. On this point no man 
can misunderstand the import of the language 
of the Kansas bill ; it is explicit to the effect 
that the people shall be left perfectly free to de- 
cide tlie question according to their own plea- 
sure ; but it is a question of what degree of law- 
making power it is competeiit for Congress to 
confer upon the people and legislature of a ter- 
ritory. It is a question of construing the 
constitution, and therefore a judicial question, 
which I am not called upon to decide. But, sir, 
I have no vii'ws to conceal ; I agree with the 
Senator from Michigan, that the territorial legis- 
lature has entire control over the subject — is 
competent to estabhsh, abolish, or protect it. 1 
can see but two sources of law-making power 
for the Territory: the one is Congress, the other 
is the people who inhabit the Territory ; and it 
seems to me, that when Congress has conferred 
upon the people all the power it possessed, as 'in 
the case of Kansas, the people, through their 
local legislature, have an ample law-making 
{lower, equal to the control of the slavery or 
any other question." — See App. Cong. Globe, vol. 
33, p. 843. 

Extract of a speech of the Hon. Lawrexce 
O'B. Branch, of North Carolina, in the House 
of Representatives, July 24, 185(3: — 

" But it is said the bill allows the people resi- 
dent there to prohibit the introduction of slavery 
before their admission into tlie Union. It con- 
tains no such feature. The thirty-second sec- 
tion declares its intent to be 'to leave the people 
thereof perfectly fiee to form and regulate their 
domestic institutions in tiieir own way, subject 
only to the Constitution of the United States.' 
If the Constitution allows them to prohibit 
slavery, then the bill permits it; if the Consti- 
tution docs not allow them to prohibit slavery, 
then the bill does not permit it. The power of 
the people during the existence of their terri- 
torial government is a judicial question, to be 
settled by tho courts, if a case should ever arise 



21 



involving tlie question ; and -whatever Gongrcss 
miglit have said in the bill, it could not have 
altered the Constitution, nor taken the question 
out of the hnnds of the Courts. Whatever may 
be the dtci-ion of the Court.^, I will be content; 
for I res;ard the great main feature of the bill as 
infinitely trans-cnding iu importance rny of the 
minor questions that can b' raised ujider it. and 
I would rather trust the question to the people 
of the Territory than to such a Congress as we 
now have, and are liable to have at any time in 
the future." — App. Cong. Globe, 1st session 3-ith 
Congress, vol. 33, pp. 1021, 1022. 

Extract from the speech of Hon. Harry 
HiBBARD, of New Hamp^rhire, in tlie House 
of Representatives, May 8, 1854 : — 

"As such the country understood and accepted 
it. It, sir, i-< the great and distinguished feature 
of the pending bill. It is embodied there in the 
following words : — 

" 'It being the tiue intent and meaning of this 
act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or 
State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave 
the people thereof perfectlj- free to form and 
regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way, subject only to the Constitution of the 
United States.' 

" This, sir, is plain and explicit. It enume- 
rates the broad doctiine of non-interference on 
the part of the Federal Government with the 
institution of slavery, and the control and regu- 
lation thereof by the States and Territories con- 
cerned. It is a principle which, to be understood, 
needs but to be stated, and to be approved needs 
but to be understood. It addresses itself to all 
our notions of expediency and right. It appeals 
to our strongest sympathies, is strengthened by 
our traditions, and sanctioned by all our experi- 
ence as individuals and as a people. It is pe- 
culiaily congenial to the American mind, and 
dear to the American heart. Attachment to it 
the most unyielding has in nil ages been a dis- 
tinguishing characteristic of the race from which 
we sprung. Upon it the framework and the 
details of our system of government, State and 
national, are based. For it the battles of the 
Revolution were fought. It was not for tlie 
money sought to be extorted b}' the stamp-act, 
and the duties on tea and sugar, that our fore- 
fathers embarked in that perilous struggle. It 
was, sir, because a vital principle was involved 
— their right of self-government was at stake — 
there was to be taxati n Avithout representation 
— they were to be made subjects of an uncon- 
trolled central power. For this they took up 
arms ; with God's ble-sing tliey triumphed. Tiie 
principle they established has been sacredly 
cherished, and will be faithfully maintained. It 
is the ground on which all our local and muni- 
cipal institutions rest. It insists first upon 
national independence and separate sovereignty. 
It would leave to the central Government no 
power the State can properly exercise — to the 
State, no function which may as well be per- 
formed by the county — to the county, nothing 
that can as well be done bj' the town. It dele- 
gates to no human hands any power or preroga- 
Uve which the individual citizen may with safety 



to others retain to himself. Its rcsttlts are popu- 
lar sovereigntj-, State rights, and individual free- 
dom. Wherever understood and applied, it has 
been in all lands and ages the surest safeguard 
of civil libCTty, — the strongest barrier against 
the encroachments of arbitrary' power. That 
principle, sir, lies at the foundation of this bill. 
As a supporter of the Compromises of 1850, 1 
voted lor it then, — I stand upon it now." — -^pp. 
Cong. Globe, 1st session 33dCong., vol. 29, p. 624 

Extract of the report of the Senate 
Committee on Territories, (Mr. Douglas, 
chairman.) March 12, 185G: — 

"Tour Committee have not considered it any 
part of their duty to examine and review each 
enactment and provision of the large volume of 
laws adojited by the Legislature of Kansas, upon 
almost every rightful subject of legislation, and 
affecting nearly every relation and interest in 
life, witli a view either of their approval or dis- 
approval by Congress ; for the reason that they 
are local laws, confined in their operation to the 
internal concerns of the Territory, the control 
and management of which by the principles of 
the Federal Constitution, as well as by the very 
terms of the Kansas-Nebraska act, are confided 
to the people of the Territory to be determined 
by themselves, through their representatives, in 
their local Legislature, and their assent to the 
laws upon which their rights and liberties may 
all depend. Under these laws marriages have 
taken place; children have been born; deaths 
have occurred; estates have been distributed; 
contracts have bet'u made; and rigjits have 
accrued which it is not competent for Congress 
to divest. If there can be a doubt in respect to 
the validity of these laws, growing out of the 
alleged irregularity of the election of the mem- 
bers of the Legislature, or the lawfulness of the 
place where its sessions were held, which it is 
competent for any tribunal to inquire into with 
a view to its decision at this day, and after the 
series of events which have ensued, it must be a 
judicial question over which Congress can have 
no control, and which can be determined only 
by the courts of justice, under the protection 
and sanction of the Constitution." — Senate Re- 
port, Ko. 81, from the Committee on Territories, 
1st session 31th Congress. 

Extract of the iSTational Democratic Plat- 
form adopted at Cincinnati, June, 1856: — 

"And that vre may more distinctly meet the 

issue on which a sectional party subsisting ex- 

I clusively on slavery agitation now relies to test 

the fidelity of the people. North and South, to 

the Constitution and the Union : 

"1. liesohed. That, claiming fellowship with 
and desiring the co-operation of all who regard 
the preservation of the Union under the Consti- 
tution as the paramount issue, — and repudiating 
all sectional parties and platforms concerning 
d'imestic slavery wliich seek to embroil the 
States and incite to treason an armed resistance 
to law in the Territories, and whose avowed 
purposes if consummated must end in civil war 
and disunion, — the American Democracy recog- 
nize and adopt the principles contained in the 



22 



organic laws establishing tlie Territories of 
Kansas nncl Nebraska, as embodying the only 
sound and safe solution of tlie ' slavery question' 
upon which the great nalioual idea of the people 
of this whole couiitiy can repose iin its deter- 
mined co'.i::;crvati.'~ni of the Union, — non-inter- 
fort'nce by Congre.-s with slavery in 8tatc and 
Territoi'y, or in the District of Columbia. 

"2. That this was the basis of the compro- 
mises of 1850, confirmed by bolli the Democratic 
nnd Whig parties in National Conventidiis, — 
ratified by the people in tlie election of 1852, — 
and riglitly applied to the organization of Terri- 
tories in 1854. 

"3. That by the uniform application of this 
Democratic piinciple to the organization of Ter- 
ritories and to the admission of new States, with 
or wilhout domestic slavery, as they may elect, 
the equal lights of all will be preserved intact, 
the original compacts of the Constitution main- 
tained inviolate, and the perpetuity and expan- 
sion of this Union insured to its utmost capacity 
of embiaciug in peace and harmony any future 
American State tlint may be constituted or an- 
nexed with a republican form of government." 

[This platform was adoi^ted unanimously 
by the convention, the vote being taken by 
States, and each delegation casting their 
united vote in its favor.] 

Extracts of the letter of acceptance of Mr. 
Buchanan of the nomination of the Cin- 
cinnati Democratic Convention, June 16 
1856 :— 

" In accepting the nomination, I need scarcely 
say that I accept, in the same spirit, the reso- 
lutions constituting the ijlatfqrm of principles 
erected by the Convention. To this platform I 
intend to confine myself throughout the canvass, 
believing that I have no right, as a candidate of 
the Democratic party, by answering interroga- 
tories, to present new and different issues before 
the people." * * *■ * 

"The agitation on the question of domestic 
slavery has too long distracted and divided the 
people of this Union, an<l alienated their affec- 
tions from each other. This agitation has as- 
sumed many forms eince its commencement, but 
it now seems to be directed chiefly to the Terri- 
tories ; and, judging f om its present character, 
I think we may safely anticipate that it is rapidly 
approaching a ' hnality.' The recent legislation 
of Congress respecting domestic slavery, derived, 
as it has been, from the original and pure foun- 
tain of legitimate political power, the will of the 
majority, promises, ere long, to allay the dan- 
gerous excitement. This legislation is founded 
upon principles as ancient as free government 
itself, and in accordance with them has simply 
declared tliat the peoi)!e of a Territory, like 
those of a .State, shall decide for themselves 
■whether slavery shall or shall not exist within 
their limits. 

" The Nebraska-Kansas act does no more than 
give the force of law to this elementary principle 
of self-government, declaring it to be the 'true 
intent and meaning of this act not to legislate 



slavery into any Territory or State, nor to ex- 
clude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof 
perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic 
institutions in their own way, subject only to the 
Cons'dtulion of the United States.' This prin- 
ciple will surel3' uut be cmitroverted by any inili- 
vidual of any party, profes-ing devotion to popu- 
lar government. Besides, how vain aiid illusory 
would any other principle prove in practice in 
regard to Tiiu Ti:i:r.iTORn;s ! This is apparent 
from the fact admitted bj' all, that after a Terri- 
tory shall have entered the Union, and become a 
State, no constitutional power would then exist 
which could prevent ii from either abolishing or 
establishing slavery, as the case may be, accord- 
ing to its sovereign will and pleasure." 

Extract of the remarks of Hon. Thomas 
L. Ci-iNGMAX, of Nortli Carolina, in the 
Senate, February 23, 1859, in the debate 
which oceurred as to the "true intent and 
meaning" of the Kansas-Nebraska act: — 

"1 never heard of gentlemen, either in this 
House or the other, expressing the opinion that 
Conr/ress was to interfere in any contiii(jeiwi u-ilh 
the Territories. I may be mistaken; but vdiile I 
remember many opinions explaining it, as they 
understood it, / do not rcviembcr any one op,'niun 
adverse to tins. Gentlemen difi'ered as to how 
much power was to be given under the act, 
[Kansas-Nebraska.] Gentlemen of the North 
said — some of them, at least — that, under that 
act, they thought the territorial legislature might 
prohibit slavery: other gentlemen said they 
thought they could not prohibit it; but all agreed 
that the yower Congress had was to he turned over 
upon the Territory, and they were to kg-islate on the 
subject, under the constitution and the construclioii 
of the courts upon their acts. Now a contingency 
is presented which w-as not foreseen. It is said, 
if a bill is introduced I shall be willing to exa- 
mine it; but I do submit to gentlemen, ought 
wc to go into a discussion of this abstraction of 
non-interventicn, and what it means, upon an 
isKuo that is not raised in any way by the propo- 
sition of the Senator from Nev/ Hampshire? 

" I did not, when I got up, intend to say a 
word about it, but having been an actor in tliose 
scenes, having read and lieaid many speeches on 
the subject, I think it jtropcr to these gentlemen 
of the North to s.iy, that so far as 1 know, I 
never heard it denied but that Congress uas going 
to abandon to the Territories the power of legis- 
lation upon the subject of tlarery and all gueslwns 
connected with it. We of the South contended 
that we had the right to legislate, and ought to 
protect; but we came to the conclusion, that on 
the whole we ivould rather trust the Territory than 
Congress. Congress we knew was against us; 
whenever the subject was up, a m.-ijority was 
voting for the proviso, (AVilmot.) And we thought 
further, that if a majorily of the Territories were 
against us, any legi-latiun here would be futile. 
While, by sending an army to Boston, you could 
bring away a runaway negro against the wishes 
of the people, you could not expect to enforce a 
system on a Territory hostile to it. I think we 
acted wisely in turning it over to the Territory. I 
say this, however, not wisitfnjfl to pilfue the 



^•i^4^° ^W 












a5°^ 



'bV 



.V 



^-^^ 






%.** .% 

s*""^. 



'•^v.%*' 






1-^^ . 



c^ **" 



-ir .« 
























^"-^^^ 



.,0- .0 






> .J" V -^ 







^°'^^>. V 



jP-^K V 



.40^ 















^* • t • 







<> *' .V 















. »* A 




<^> „ o • a 







WtRT 
BOOKBINOI^ 

M« ■« 3.1'* Six.'-; 



